City Administrative Officer
This letter was sent by the Pacific Palisades Community Council Executive Committee on July 26 to Matt Szabo, city administrative officer, and Yolanda Chavez, assistant CAO (overseeing the subject feasibility study), concerning the use of Will Rogers State Beach parking lot for temporary homeless housing. It has been reprinted here with permission.
Supplementing our letters to the CAO of June 10, June 17 and July 12, Pacific Palisades Community Council brings to your attention the fact that there is a General Plan for WRSB. The GP was posted a few days ago on the website of the California State Dept. of Parks and Recreation and is available at parks.ca.gov/?page_id=24366. The Cal Parks “Purpose Statement” for WRSB is also on the website under the “Purpose Statements Collection,” at parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21877.
Please see our detailed GP Summary at pacpalicc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/WRSB-General-Plan.pdf.
The GP and Purpose Statement make clear, beyond question, that the purpose of WRSB is for day use for recreation and enjoyment by all members of the public—not for habitation or housing of any kind.
People of good will—proponents as well as opponents of the proposed use, including the undersigned and other PPCC members—encourage and applaud efforts by public officials such as the CAO and Controller Ron Galperin to ascertain feasible locations to house the unhoused in Los Angeles. It is evident now, from information that has come to light about the GP, that WRSB is impermissible for this purpose and therefore entirely infeasible. Spending any more time and energy on studying this disallowed site would waste public resources, and delay and impede the urgent goal of creating housing for the unhoused. Accordingly, the CAO should terminate further study of WRSB, conclude that it is infeasible and move on to consider actually viable locations, thereby accelerating the imperative need to house the unhoused at suitable sites.
Further Argument:
The GP specifically provides that “the beach should make available to all visitors—for their benefit and enjoyment—the wide variety of resources along the shoreline and coastal strand.” It repeatedly references the use of WRSB for recreational opportunities. It also mandates that management policies and construction improvements “shall be accomplished in a manner that enhances public opportunities for ocean beach-oriented recreation.”
It is established law that agencies’ decisions on land use and development must be consistent with applicable general plans. Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural etc. v. Board of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal App.4th 1332, 1336. A proposed project cannot be consistent with the general plan if it violates a “fundamental, mandatory and specific land use policy.” Id. at 1341-1342.
The use now proposed for WRSB—housing for the unhoused—is fundamentally inconsistent with the GP, with the Purpose Statement, with the other documents that govern WRSB (including the Fifty-Year Operating Agreement, which we have previously brought to your attention), and with all California Public Resources Code provisions applicable to state parks and beaches (e.g., PRC Sections 5001.9 (b), 5029.56 (c), 5019.53, 30210 and 30211). It is readily apparent to any reasonable person that allowing homeless housing or habitation of any kind at state parks and beaches—to remain in place for three to three and a half years, or for any length of time—would be completely inconsistent with the parks’ “most important values and features” as well as with Cal Parks’ express primary policy objective—to preserve and enhance public recreational opportunities at these beaches.
We also note: The GP discusses and expresses concern about numerous environmental and public safety issues that were present in 1986, including significant fire and geologic hazards, flooding, traffic, and pedestrian and vehicular safety. We specifically brought these issues to your attention in our June 10 letter. These same issues are present today and, in some instances, will be exacerbated by siting homeless housing at WRSB.
Conclusion:
Both WRSB and Dockweiler are entirely infeasible—under the GPs for each of these state parks, under other controlling documents, and under applicable state and local laws. We respectfully urge you to immediately end further unproductive evaluation of these state parks and continue instead with the important study of other sites that are potentially feasible to house the unhoused in Los Angeles.
Executive Committee, Pacific Palisades Community Council
David Card, Chair
Christina Spitz, Secretary
David Kaplan, Vice-Chair
Richard G. Cohen, Treasurer
John Padden, Organization
Representative (P.R.I.D.E.)
Joanna Spak, Elected Representative (Area 1; Castellammare, Paseo Miramar)
Rainfall Response
The July 22 article on rainfall in Pacific Palisades remaining “below average” is an understatement. I have seen dried up creek beds before, but actually witnessing Temescal Canyon’s flowing creek drying up is alarming.
My dog used to wade into the deep waters and it is now dry dirt. I cannot help but imagine our lovely park turning into a desert if this pattern continues.
Shouldn’t our infrastructure bill, or at least local officials, be considering some type of irrigation system, similar to what they have in Israel? It is much easier to maintain the environment than to correct it.
Linda Overheu
Veterans Gardens
I have lived on Ocampo Drive for over 45 years one long block from Palisades Park. It has been a joy to hear all the happy sounds—from baseball games to company picnics/barbecues—coming from the park.
My kids grew up playing sports at the park. Now, with the beautiful new bocce ball courts they are enjoying a new sport as adults. The park currently has no programs for seniors, and bocce has certainly provided a wonderful activity for the seniors of our Palisades community.
The Palisades Park Improvement Corporation came to the local American Legion with a plan to build Veterans Gardens. Post 283 agreed to make a sizable donation if the Palisades Park Improvement Corporation would make a matching grant. They did.
A long painful process began. The plans for Veterans Gardens, including the BBQs and bocce ball courts, were approved by the city. You would expect that Recreation and Parks would be ecstatic that a local group would raise money to make improvements to the park, but this has not been the case. Issues have now arisen.
One issue is that all of the BBQs have padlocks. The fire department says that there’s no regulation against the BBQs at Palisades Park, but yet the BBQs remain padlocked.
Another concern at Veterans Gardens is that dog owners are letting their dogs run off leash and thus the Veterans Garden landscaping is being trampled. This is a garden not a dog run.
Of utmost importance is that residents who live next to the park have complained relentlessly. The detailed plans for Veterans Gardens were shared with everyone. They now want a noise abatement study.
Park commissioners need
to step up. Let the park be open for all the people and not held hostage by a few homeowners.
Dave Borgeson
State Park Agencies
This letter was sent by the Pacific Palisades Community Council Executive Committee on July 24 to Wade Crowfoot, secretary, California Natural Resources Agency, and Armando Quintero, director, California Department of Parks and Recreation, and has been reprinted here with permission.
Following up on our letter to you of July 19, Pacific Palisades Community Council appreciates the prompt action taken by the Cal Parks Planning Dept. in response to PPCC’s recent request, in posting the WRSB General Plan on the Cal Parks website. The GP is now available at: parks.ca.gov/?page_id=24366.
We have reviewed the GP in detail. In short, it has become overwhelmingly evident that the purpose of WRSB is for public enjoyment and recreation—i.e., not for habitation, homeless or otherwise.
To reiterate: The use now proposed for WRSB—housing for the unhoused—is fundamentally inconsistent with the GP, with the Purpose Statement for WRSB, with the documents that govern WRSB, and with all applicable Code provisions (e.g., Public Resources Code Sections 5001.9 (b), 5029.56 (c), 5019.53, 30210 and 30211). It would also conflict with relevant local law (Los Angeles County Code §§17.12.232(H) and 17.12.260—dwelling prohibited on the beach and at beach parking lots), as well as State Park Rules & Regulations, posted on the Cal Parks website (camping at any one State Park campsite limited to no more than 30 days per calendar year).
We further note: The GP discusses and expresses concern about numerous environmental and public safety issues that were present in 1986, including significant fire and geologic hazards, flooding, traffic, and pedestrian and vehicular safety. As we have previously brought to the attention of city officials, these same issues are present today and, in some instances, will clearly be exacerbated by siting housing for the unhoused at WRSB.
PPCC again urges you to decide, on behalf of the state, that the use of WRSB to house the unhoused is not permitted and that you immediately advise all relevant Los Angeles City and County officials of your decision. Thank you.
Executive Committee, Pacific Palisades Community Council
David Card, Chair
Christina Spitz, Secretary
David Kaplan, Vice-Chair
Richard G. Cohen, Treasurer
John Padden, Organization
Representative (P.R.I.D.E.)
Joanna Spak, Elected Representative (Area 1; Castellammare, Paseo Miramar)
The Palisadian-Post accepts letters to the editor via email at mypost@palipost.com or mail/hand-delivered at 881 Alma Real Drive, Suite 213, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272. To be considered for publication, letters must be signed, and are subject to editing for length and clarity. Opinions expressed in letters do not necessarily reflect the views of opinions of the Palisadian-Post.
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.