Meeting Date: 03/10/05 06:30 PM

Meeting Type: Regular

Location: HOLLYWOOD HERITAGE MUSEUM 2100 N. HIGHLAND AVENUE Hollywood, CA 90028 (Location across from Hollywood Bowl. Park free available. Enter parking lot at Odin or at Highland and Camrose.) – Dinner will NOT be served.

MARCH 10, 2004 6:30 PM
Hollywood, CA 90028

(Location across from Hollywood Bowl. Park free available.
Enter parking lot at Odin or at Highland and Camrose.)

The public is requested to fill out a “Speaker Card” to address the Board on any item of the agenda prior to the Board taking action on an item. Comments from the public on Agenda items will be heard only when the respective item is being considered. Comments from the public on other matters not appearing on the Agenda that is within the Board’s subject matter jurisdiction will be heard during the Public Comment period. Public comment is limited to 3 minutes per speaker unless waived by the presiding officer of the Board. Agenda is posted for public review: Gardner Street Elementary School, Valley View Elementary School, Yucca Community Center, on bulletin boards at the top and bottom of Runyon Canyon Park, Los Angeles Library: Will and Ariel Durant Branch and electronically on the Hollywood Hills West Neighborhood Council website As a covered entity under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Angeles does not discriminate on the basis of disability and upon request, will provide reasonable accommodation to ensure equal access to its programs, services, and activities. Sign language interpreters, assistive listening devices, or other auxiliary aids and/or services may be provided upon request. To ensure availability of services, please make your request at least 3 business days (72 hours) prior to the meeting you wish to attend by contacting the Neighborhood Council Project Coordinator at (213) 485-1588 or e-mail to [email protected].

1. Call to order and roll call.

2. President’s comments – Status of HHWNC (10 minutes)

3. Hollywood Community Plan update – Presentation by LA City Planning Staff (Mary Richardson and Jose Romero-Navarro)- Report by HHWNC Ad Hoc Hollywood Community Plan committee, Q & A. (30 minutes)

4. Minutes – Review and approve prior minutes (vote) (5 minutes).

5. Financial Status – Review and approve treasurer’s report and any budget issues (vote) (10 minutes).
A. Motion by John: Move to transfer of $900 from Board Meeting budget to allocated funds for website upgrade and maintenance.
Second: Ossie
Passes unanimously by Executive Committee.
B. Motion by John: Move to transfer $7,000 from Committee meeting budget to contingency, leaving the Committee Meeting budget with a balance of approximately $4200 for the rest of the fiscal year.
Second: Jen
Passes unanimously by Executive Committee.
C. Motion by John: Move to pay $590, up from $350, for maintenance to expand website capability for flurries and emails. The additional funds to come from the contingency amounts.
Second: Ossie
Passes unanimously by Executive Committee.

6. Projects Update – Hollywood Blvd Nightclub bus system, Runyon Canyon Kiosks raising, and Runyon Canyon Volunteers (10 minutes)

7. MOTION: HHWNC to support ZA Daniel Green’s denial of Vogue Theater at the applicant’s March 22, 2005 appeal hearing. Motion by Area 3 and seconded by Area 4. Discussion and vote (10 minutes)

8. MOTION: HHWNC to support expanding our subway system including the use of subway tunneling for heavy rail. Motion by Traffic and seconded by President (vote) (10 minutes)

9. MOTION: HHWNC to request the City of Los Angeles establish a comprehensive law creating fines for signs which are not taken down after a defined end date, the day after an event (for which the signs were posted) upon which a fine can be levied. Motion by Environment and seconded by Area 4 (vote) (10 minutes)

10. MOTION: HHWNC to request Area 1 and 2 to determine if they wish to move the portions of their area from the Sherman Oaks, Studio City, Toluca Lake and Cahuenga Pass Community Plan Area into the Hollywood Community Plan Area and that this Board will follow their determination. Motion by President and second by Parliamentarian (vote) (10 minutes)

11. Discussion of HHWNC election procedures and required HHWNC bylaw changes to conform with prescribe Los Angeles City requirements for certified neighborhood councils. (Possible motions and votes) (20 minutes)

12. Update on old Duran Library site purchased by LA City Dept. of Sanitation. (5 minutes)

13. Discussion of a Theater Night proposed by Culture resources, entertainment and public events committee. (10 minutes) (Possible vote)

14. Update on a 501(c)(3) foundation. (10 minutes) (Possible motion and vote)

15. Update on beautification project being proposed at intersection of Laurel Canyon, Mulholland, and Woodrow Wilson. (5 minutes)

16. General Comments – Comments from board members on non-agenda items. (10 minutes)

17. Public Comments – Comments from the public on non-agenda items within the Board’s subject matter jurisdiction. Public comments are limited to three minutes per speaker.

18. Adjournment (9PM or earlier).

PROCESS FOR RECONSIDERATION: The Board may reconsider and amend its action on items listed on the agenda if that reconsideration takes place immediately following the original action or at the next regular meeting. The Board, on either of these two days, shall: (1) Make a Motion for Reconsideration and, if approved, (2) hear the matter and Take an Action. If the motion to reconsider an action is to be scheduled at the next meeting following the original action, then two items shall be placed on the agenda for that meeting: (1) A Motion for Reconsideration on the described matter and (2) a Proposed Action should the motion to reconsider be approved. A motion for reconsideration can only be made by a Board member who has previously voted on the prevailing side of the original action taken. If a motion for reconsideration is not made on the date the action was taken, then a Board member on the prevailing side of the action must submit a memorandum to the Secretary identifying the matter to be reconsidered and a brief description of the reason(s) for requesting reconsideration at the next regular meeting. The aforesaid shall all be in compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.

Hollywood Heritage Museum
2100 N. Highland Ave
Hollywood, CA 90028
March 10, 2004

Dan Bernstein, President called the board meeting to order at 6:45 p.m.

Present: Dan Bernstein, President; Ossie Cohen, Vice President; Jennifer Alwood, Secretary; John Connolly, Parliamentarian; Paul Woolsey, Kenneth Jones, Orrin Feldman(late)- Jeffrey Rouze, Robert Gonzales, Claire Guy(late)- Theresa Larkin(late)- Anthony Deckoff, Paul Ramsey, Conrad Schoeffter, Charles Alvare (late)- and Frank DeFoe.

Special Appearance: Vince Vitale

Excused Absences: Bob Cook, Treasurer; Anastasia Mann, Jon Hartmann; Wilson Bell, and Michele Miyakawa

Dan: We are in good shape as a council. I do want to alert the board that I don’t intend to run for re-election, so this board should begin to think about leadership and plans for the future. I have spent several years working with Neighborhood Councils and now it is time for someone else to take over. I will step down at the end of this term.

Correction: Conrad Schoeffter should have been marked present.
MOTION by Paul that we accept the minutes as written with the correction.
SECOND: Robert
VOTE: Consensus

a) Dan: [budget in packet] Bob Cook is home ill. He submitted the budget for February 22 and we had 2 expenditures. This is on the basis of some motions we need to look at. Any questions before we alter it. [For benefit of stakeholders, John explained how the budget is allocated from the City and how disbursed by the NCs.] The executive board passed this motion.

b) DAN: My note on the budget says $870 would give us a $0 balance. But now we have a surplus because the January meeting food was donated and we are having logistical problems with the credit card so we don’t have food tonight. The bills for the website are in the packet.

c) MOTION by John to move to transfer $900 from Board Meeting budget to allocated funds for website upgrade and maintenance.
SECOND: Robert
VOTE: Unanimous – motion passes

d) DAN: The Committee Chair budget allocated $600 for each committee for the year. We have $11,237.57 for the remaining fiscal year. We felt we could take $7,000 of that and allocate it to contingency so that we could respond to things and use it in a better fashion. We will still have $4,200 for the committees. The executive committee passed this motion.

e) MOTION by John move to transfer $7,000 from Committee Meeting budget to contingency, leaving the Committee Meeting budget with a balance of approximately $4,200 for the rest of the fiscal year.

f) Anthony: I felt discouraged from spending on committee meetings because it takes so long to be reimbursed. I am still owed money from last May. Dan: The treasurer, Bob is not here, and many have not been reimbursed, me included. Also, we have two bills from Mail & More [in packet #5]- which have not been paid from last month. Our e-mail is hosted by the same group that hosts our website. We are having problems with squirrel mail. They are suggesting that we move our squirrel mail service to a higher level of service [in packet #5c] which they recommend we go to a VDS which will cost us $590 a year vs. $350 we are paying now. That would give us additional gigabytes of disc space. Frank: I am in favor of this, but squirrel mail is not user friendly. I’d like to see more energy put on the user-friendly aspect. Dan: This is just giving us more server space, but I will give you their number and you can call them on that issue.

VOTE: Unanimous – motion passes

Roz Brown, Rec & Parks: A year ago this board agreed to support 4 of my events, Halloween, Las Posada, an Easter Egg Hunt/Spring Spectacular and the fair. I have been trying to get your treasurer to give me $300 for the Easter Egg Hunt, which will be at Yucca Park Community center on 3/26. Bob said he was not comfortable giving me that. I have already laid out the money. He told me a demand warrant was signed in February, I have given him my original receipts, but I can’t get the money from him. Here are 12 pages of the many e-mails between us. Paul W: Could I as a board member handle Roz’s need, as kind of a chairman committee expense? Then maybe Bob could give me the credit card to handle what she needs. Dan: While we have allocated the money and told the treasurer to disburse it, he has not been as helpful as he could be. Ken: I remember this, but why is this person being singled out and why is this situation before us? Paul R: Is Bob choosing not to pay all the bills or is he processing them and the City is not paying the bills? Dan: I talked to Bob and suggested that he go to the ATM and withdraw $500 each month. With it pay for all committee expenses limiting it to $50. He said if I am limiting the board to $50, how can he pay Roz $300. I argued with him on that. He chose not to do that. We can pay cash, credit card or demand warrant. We can always transfer the money from the demand warrant to credit card. We have the money; there is something else going on.
[Open discussion on ways funds are being handled in general.]

Anthony: Bob is not doing his job, what is our recourse? Dan: It is a long process for a recall, including having another person go through the training. I have had long conversations with Bob, mostly by e-mail and it is not working. I think the ideal thing would be peer pressure from all of you wanting him to perform in a timely manner. Ossie: I will personally call Bob and Roz tomorrow. Roz: Bob is jeopardizing the use of the Center. The Park Advisory Board wants to know what is going on. Dan: Area 3 used to not be well represented. But Paul has changed all that, so we don’t want this relationship jeopardized in any way. Conrad: is there someone else that can sign checks? Dan: I have to co-sign demand warrants with him. I contacted him before he went into the hospital and asked him to let me handle things and he said no thank you. Remember he stormed out of at least one meeting in response to my attempts to move the agenda when he wanted to continue the topic. Ken: The rest of us deserve an explanation at the next meeting; we can’t have persons stand in the way of disbursing the funds.

6. Announcement:
Dan: Roz and I are planning a series of scenarios for the Runyon Canyon volunteers. This Saturday between 1 and 5 p.m. Please come out and help train 18 volunteers for the park, letting them know what kinds of things can happen when talking to the public.

g) Mary Richardson and Jose Romero-Navarro – City Planning Dept: [Distributed maps: “Existing Planned Land Use” and “Draft: Land Use & Zone Change” map.] [Holding her map and pointing to various colored locations] The Change map shows planned use for both commercial and residential. The goal is to remove a Development Limitation “DL” that was imposed in 1988. I think it’s a commercial or a highway oriented or neighborhood office where floor area is 1:1 and what we are proposing is to restore the floor area to 1.5:1 consistent with the rest of the city. This way it makes way for a developer to come in and do something. As it is now a developer would have to ask for a variance.

h) Blue area near Hollywood Gateway is removal of the DL. Orange area on Sunset and the Blue shaped L on Cahuenga are similar, they will be changed to general commercial zoning; area on Highland that change will make that public facilities. Now Park and Rec trucks are parked there. Public use could be for a library or a school or a park. It is now designated as commercial, and we are now making it reflect existing use. Orange spots are removing DL and restoring 1.5:1 FAR. Also on Forest Lawn Drive.

i) FAR does not apply retroactive or current; it is for the future we are changing the FAR. There are no height limitations [distributed sheet “FAR in Height District 1, 1L” etc] a building could be many configuration of heights. FAR is not part of height.

j) Area along Yucca (all orange is commercial) (red residential) the uses there are almost completely high density residential. We will make the two orange areas residential. Since residential is there already we will make it high density residential. We are down zoning from a current R5 (highest density) to R4, with one consistent corridor with the same density.

k) Dan: We like to alternative uses of the lots that are run by Grant. Is this within the changes? Carlos- City Planning: We are taking away the right for them to build more commercial developments. Mary: All orange will have the FAR change of 1.5:1; this is not a big incentive for a developer to build.

l) Mary: Hollywood/LaBrea Ave is a mini mall but is zoned residential. Robert Nudelman Hollywood Heritage Museum: It was actor Charlie Chaplin’s home. Mary: We are rezoning it to commercial for present use. Dark blue area on LaBrea. We want to be sure the Plan can anticipate population growth, so we have mixed use throughout the plan. So we will give a FAR of 3:1 incentive for a developer to come in with a mixed use of retail below and living space above. There are a number of mixed-use areas in the Plan. Robert: There are existing metro lines; do you handle that, too? Mary: These were just added to the map as placeholders. Paul W: A stretch on Yucca is in my district, you are proposing to change all of that? Mary: It is R5 and will be down zoned to R4 which means less density if someone builds in the future.

[Open discussion on various areas of Hollywood, FAR and height limitations; explanation of over height of some buildings.]
m) Mary: Proposition U came in and pushed down the FAR, and then the Community Plan pushed it down even further. Paul R: Will you return with further information? Mary: Next will be public meetings, open house, a workshop, a hearing before the Planning Commission and the City Council. My e-mail address is [email protected] 213- 978-1205. I am not sure the dept will have me come back again. John: Dan reminded me that Conrad is chairing on this Hollywood Plan is this just staff work or are residents involved that helped develop this. Mary: Staff work and input from stakeholders and the use of something called “framework” as a guiding source.

n) Joy Stewart – Hollywood Heights Bd Member I am concerned about density and heights. The developer could always ask for a variance and then at that time the public could give input. Mary: We need a consensus on zoning for the entire city, but the amount of change we are proposing from a developer’s point of view is modest. Robert Nudelman: Some of these have to meet the Hollywood Plan and other plans and some of them have not been done yet. How can you make a Plan and it is not consistent with the other Plans? Jose – City Planning: Any project that takes place in the city by CRA has to be consistent with our Plan. Stakeholder: City Planning works with developers and gives them what they want; are you encouraging growth? Mary: There will always be growth and we want to forecast where is the best place to put that growth. We want to put it around the transit infrastructure to get them to use mass transit instead of cars. Stakeholder: Ms. Richards came out in the summer and held a public meeting, which I attended. I suggest everyone taker her e-mail and get on her list. Dan: Also get involved with Conrad’s sub committee.

a) EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MOTION [Item 10] by Dan to request Area 1 and 2 to determine if they wish to move the portions of their area from the Sherman Oaks, Studio City, Toluca Lake and Cahuenga Pass Community Plan Area into the Hollywood Community Plan area and that the Board will follow their determination.

b) Dan: In your packet is a map [Item 10] and letters from people in the Cahuenga Pass community in support of this. The Chamber of Commerce is sponsoring a motion with Assemblymembers Jackie Goldberg and Paul Koretz, author and co-author of the Bill to create a Hollywood Community Statistical Reporting Area (SRA). I asked them to include our area. It turns out they need to follow the Community Plan. Walker Dearth, VP of Public Policy, Hollywood Chamber of Commerce: The Hollywood Chamber is in support of the two communities who want to be included in the plan. With regard to the Assembly Bill 588 [distributed] we used the Community Plan to define Hollywood, since it was done with the City. The SRA gives demographics on the area to be used for residential plans, commercial plans, roads, etc. I am requesting that this board support AB 588.

c) Paul R: I represent Area 1; there is also a Homeowners Association in the area. Even though they are not linked to any of these communities, it has never made any sense that the Community Plan splits our neighborhood in half and I have asked for the change. Also the issue of Universal; they chose, for legal reasons to secede into the Valley. It makes sense to put them in the Plan as well based on the hotel and City Walk. John: There are no accurate report numbers of how many people work in the entertainment industry, so we could use SRA to lobby for resources. I support the motion.

d) SECOND: Robert

e) Anthony: Is the unincorporated area of Universal is in our Neighborhood Council area? Dan: We go around it, but the actual map does not include it. Orrin: Why are we making a determination when we are only advisory and we are not the ones making the decision? The phrasing of the motion is a little off. Dan: They will “determine” if they wish to move and I do understand that we are advisory. Krista Michael, Pres. Cahuenga Pass Property Owners Association: During secession the community did not want to be part of the Valley, but wanted either Hollywood or Los Angeles. We don’t know why we are in the Toluca Lake Plan. My concern is how do I evaluate city services like police and fire, will we get worse service? Dan: That is another subject. Charles has a meeting on March 16 at Valley View School to begin this discussion. Walker: The first hearing of the Bill is April 12 at 9 a.m. The Chamber wants as much support as possible; it would be helpful to have this board’s determination as soon as possible.

f) MOTION by John to embody the language of the previous MOTION in the agenda [Executive Motion # 10] and secondly given the report that we asked for from the Chamber on the Statistical Reporting Area that we support Assembly Bill 588.

VOTE: Majority. 1 Abstain – Anthony

No report available.

a) Paul W: Area 3 is asking the board to reverse its position of support, taken in May of last year because there are a lot of problems with the project: crowds, noise, and impact on Musso & Franks Restaurant. This has been ongoing for several months. In February our committee voted to rescind support. We support ZA Dan Green’s rejection of the Vogue Theatre’s application. There were a lot of conditions attached to our support: a parking plan, a business plan and we never got those and it has been 10 months. Paul R: You were in favor of this so what are the specifics now for your opposition? Paul W: We have not gotten the mixed-use business plan, also their starting time of 11 o’clock at night. We were going to get a plan that Musso & Franks would not be damaged and we have not gotten that. Ken: Did you make attempts? Paul W: We asked Elizabeth Peterson who was the consultant on the project and she kept saying it was coming and it never did.

b) Joshua Kaplan, Attorney, Vogue Theatre: [Distributed booklet with Overview, parking and business strategy information] We are opposed to this amendment. Elizabeth Peterson is still on the project. I apologize to Area 3; I don’t know what went on before I took the case. The Vogue is a dinner theatre a multi-use venue not a nightclub; there are 42 conditions that were proposed. As far as parking is concerned that has been a major issue. This lease is for 175 dedicated spaces with 35 feet adjacent to the club. Those other parking leases were blocks away and are still in force. Dan: This hearing on March 22, you have passed out a document, would you consider putting off that appeal? Joshua: Yes. I am new to the matter. I want these documents in front of you first and then at the appeal hearing. I prefer to have this council to have a reasonable opportunity to review it, have question and put off the decision until then. Brian Dyer (stakeholder): We are very heavily impacted by clubs and restaurants. One of the turning points of our February meeting was about parking. There was no guarantee about parking. We have a lot of problems in that area, so we voted not to have it. It would have been good to have Vogue come to our meeting on Tuesday. I am requesting the board not take a vote at this time.

c) Freddy Brady – Vogue owner: We were asked at the last meeting to provide a parking plan and the use plan, and we did so. They said at Area 3, if I brought them this information they would go back to supporting us. It is a theatre with dining. Ken: When was this document prepared? Joshua: I have been working on it for the past ten days; the parking lease has a February 24 finalization date. Robert: There are an over abundance of liquor licenses in the area and clubs in the area. Everyone says they have parking but it is way out of hand in that area. I asked for the parking plan 10 months ago. They are just now bringing this to us; they had plenty of time to get their act together. Jordan Jones: I am also the co-owner of Musso and Franks, the restaurant has been in my family for years. For the last few years we have already had to deal with the Las Palmas Nightclub and the Geisha Club so we are between two nightclubs and we have seen negative effects. Now another club next door that is negative to my business; it is a detriment to my business. In the last 4 years we have seen our revenue go down.

d) Ellen Berkowtiz – Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, representing Musso & Franks: I think this is improper what Vogue is doing. There is one plan they filed for and that was as a nightclub. Now they say it will be mixed use. Dan Green will file on the nightclub, not on mixed use. I ask you to deny and let them start all over. Also parking is an issue they have not resolved. Ossie: I want to see Mr. Green’s file. Paul W: I would like to clarify Mr. Brady’s remarks about the decision reached by Area 3 at the February 8 meeting. I put through a motion that said we would continue the support if they did certain things. They voted it down. The next motion was by Brian that we support Dan Green’s denial and it passed. Regarding parking, at first it was at Prestige Parking behind the wax museum. Last summer there were no parking spaces in that lot and Elizabeth Peterson said there were no spaces there, but she has in this report they are using that lot. I can see that lot from my house and I don’t see 30 empty spaces on a weekend night. Brady: We were given exclusivity on 175 spots. There was a change in management. Paul W. We can verify that. Brady: How would you verify it?

f)e) Ken: Mr. Brady, have you seen this application Ms. Berkowtiz refers to? Brady: No I have not. Jordan: [he read Dan Green’s decision, which mentions it as a restaurant, theater and nightclub.] Rena Dheming (stakeholder): I never voted on the Vogue Theatre. But Paul told me that Elizabeth was no longer affiliated with the Vogue project and we should reconsider our position. The motion made was to support Dan Green’s decision. I think the vote we should take tonight should be a new vote if the board is going to support Dan Green’s rejection. [Rena read her position on the Vogue, which stated that she was against the Vogue Theatre applicant erecting a rooftop patio-or any outdoor patio, and supported Councilmember Garcetti’s opposition on the roof patio, a traffic problem, noise from the patrons, parking packed into a small lot.] Stakeholder: I took notes at all the meetings Mr. Brady attended and he referred to the Vogue as a nightclub.

f) Anthony: If we support you in this denial, do we have your commitment to take seriously a future use for this Vogue Theatre? John: Was the original paperwork we saw the same report submitted to the ZA? Paul W: I think you are right. Dan: we approved it based on the conditions that Elizabeth put before us. Paul R: The City has limited classifications; this may only fit into the “nightclub” category. Maybe they had to file under this term to qualify under the restrictions of L.A. City. Brady: We are still behind those conditions. Dan: What happens if the Central Area Planning Commission denies your appeal? Joshua: we go to court. We do not withdraw. There were 42 conditions between the Council and Brady and they are still in place and agreeable. There was support for the project, but then the applicant was not forthcoming with parking and the project plan. Sometimes semantics are meaningful, sometimes they are a trap; to be hung up on a label is not meaningful. The crux is what it is going to be, not what you call it. It has a restaurant license; it is going to be a multi use concept dinner theatre. I am troubled by the proposition that this NC is being asked to give preferential treatment to Musso and Franks because they fear competition. Dan: I think this board has a clear understanding that it is a parking issue and it is a major concern.

g) SECOND: Frank
VOTE: To deny applicant: 8 in favor; 3 against; 4 abstaining. Motion passes

MOTION by Traffic Committee to support expanding of our subway system including the use of subway tunneling for heavy rail.

Orrin: I know that Councilmember LaBonge has been spearheading this, but we don’t want tunneling at Runyon Canyon and other places. Dan: This is a motion by our traffic chair that testified before the Traffic Board, John Hartmann. Claire: Is this regarding expansion in particular or in general? Dan: This just puts it on the table and we support that. Robert: We need more subways, but they also need to be expanded further out. Charles: Our public transportation is inadequate in this city so I support this motion.

VOTE: Unanimous – motion passes

Dan: Our current bylaws say we have to elect our chairs at the same meeting where we elect our officers, all in one evening. What the City is requiring is an extended election over a period of more than one evening and are suggesting a Friday – Sunday process. So people can vote at the time they choose. You have to have a certain number of votes to stay certified. We have only been getting about 80 to 100 people. We have to think about how to adapt our ballot and how the issues committees are formed. I suggested we consider electing part of the board each year; the issues and area committees on a 2 year term and the officers a 1 year term. Our focus is on how to have an election where people have time to come and vote. Ossie: DONE says you have to submit your election procedures no less than 90 days before the election. John: We agree we need to make these changes. But the By-laws call for an election committee but it is not active, so we have to get a board member to step forward and take over the election procedures. It is crucial we decide this tonight. Ossie: Bob was the election chair and some of you are still on that committee. Frank: You seem up to speed Ossie, is this something you will take on? Ossie: I will assist someone. Theresa: I will chair it if others will help. Dan: Theresa, Bob (chair)- Paul W and I are on the committee. Anthony: How are we going to get this done? Dan: We may get a waiver to push the election back. There is a timeline to get to the stakeholders. We need a committee to come up with procedures and changes within the next 2 weeks, out the first week of April, and have the election 90 days from then. Robert: Is there someone else’s procedures we can use as a template? Dan: Patricia Price sent us some things on procedures. We have $20,000 for the election.

MOTION by John to appoint Theresa as the chair of the ad hoc election committee.

John: But is everyone else who was on the committee still going to stay? Dan: This is tax season, I will not be able to serve, but I can’t speak for the others. Robert: If you can hold off the elections until fall you may have more support. Dan: Who will be on the committee: [Volunteers: Paul W, Anthony, Theresa, Ossie and Robert]

VOTE: Majority. 1 abstain- Claire

MOTION to request the City of Los Angeles to establish a comprehensive law creating fines for signs which are not taken down after a defined end date, the day after an event (for which the signs were posted) upon which a fine can be levied. Motion by Environment Committee and seconded by Area 4.

Vince: I am here today as a special appearance. I am otherwise boycotting this meeting. This is only one of the 10 motions sent to be put on this agenda. This is one of the lesser motions. We have a problem in this city with lots of events and people put up lots of signs, and then they feel they have no responsibility to clean up afterwards. They stay up until the City decides to pay businesses to take them down. This motion is a way to face the problem and put the burden on the people who put up the signs. Paul R: What kind of time frame? Vince: Time could be created by the business itself say one or two months and could state the beginning and end date or they could be fined by a policeman for not removing it. Conrad: Do we change the motion to say send a letter to the appropriate authorities for better enforcement? Dan: I pulled this information off the website this afternoon. There is a city ordinance that already exists regarding signs. Now the issue is to get the City to enforce an existing ordinance.
Vince: Dan, I don’t have a copy of this in front of me, because I’ve just come in, but why are you presenting this now? Why didn’t you bring this to the meeting of the Environment Committee when we were considering this? Dan, you are on the Environment Committee. Why now? That was six weeks ago. You could have e-mailed this to me any time between then and now. It doesn’t matter. The issue is that the city does not enforce these laws and we are still trying to resolve this problem. [Robert Nudelman gave some background on the ordinance that signs are not to be put up at all. It got into a lot of complex issues including third party people putting up signs on private property and who was responsible for taking them down.] Orrin: This really belongs with the Public Community Advisory Board as it gets into issues of enforcement. f. Vince: Fine. It is important to keep this in the public consciousness. I think this should be tabled so we can have more discussion about the issue and how it could be resolved.

MOTION by John to table the abandoned sign issue.
SECOND: Jennifer

Claire: I was promised an update by the Department of Sanitation. I have head from residents who live in apartment buildings near the site, and they are unhappy about a proposed treatment plant. Dan: Talk to Darrin Gold our former Vice President he lives next door.

MOTION by John to table all but item 13 and Public Comment in the interest of the late hour.
VOTE: Consensus

Dan: the executive committee has approved it and recommends it.

MOTION by Orrin that we approve the Theatre Night proposed by the Cultural Committee pending receipt of their proposal.
VOTE: Unanimous

a) John: The mixer that Theresa organized was terrific, thanks for all your hard work.

b) Theresa: [distributed proposed budget] Our committee is proposing a $20,000 budget. It will have yearly awards events called the Holly Award, horseback riding and mixers and more. Dan: The outreach budget is also part of the election budget. If you could tie this party into the election results then you could give out your Holly Awards. Come back with a motion that we could put forth and maybe work with the executive committee on the budget.

c) Vince: I have a problem with the way my motions from the Environment Committee were handled. I had a meeting in January and we passed 11 motions. I presented them to Dan with little or no discussion, but when I got the agenda there was only the 1 motion on the agenda. The problem is that the 10 other motions that my committee passed may never come up. Dan picks what he wants to see on the agenda and leaves out the rest. This is wrong. I don’t mind if they are all put on the agenda and then tabled for lack of time. It embarrasses me to my committee who took their time to put together all these things. I have spoke to a number of chairs and it happens to them as well. I believe we have to change this system. Theresa: I mentioned last time that it seemed difficult to get on our feet that the mentorship was not substantial. There are many good people here and I want to reinforce what Vince said. You heard people say they don’t have enough time to speak, that 3 minutes is not enough. I think it takes a slight adjustment to treat people better.

d) Dan: I saw what the agenda was going to look like and 10 motions from Vince and some other motions were circulated to all the board members via e-mail. In this case, I sent out an e-mail with Paul’s motion which said I have so many motions I need seconds so that I can put those on the agenda. I have not intentionally left any motions out. I go out of my way not to filter what I want. Vince I take exception to your attitude and the way you feel when there are several ways you can work with me. You can come to me with what you want. If you want my time, I have never refused anyone time, but I have more responsibilities as President than you do. Theresa, all your motions got on the board; yours just needed to be worked up. Has anyone else had that happen?

e) Paul R. Some of them were complicated but still important. Dan: I send you back a response, but don’t get anything back from you. Paul R: I don’t get them, I don’t have the password and my PC filters out some. John: The way Dan explained his method and you may not agree with it but we have to do all of it in 180 minutes. Maybe the next president will put everything on the agenda and we will have a longer agenda and a longer meeting. Vince: This was a seconding process that did not go out to everyone and I didn’t receive it. Seconding should be in a meeting not e-mail.

f) Frank: [distributed information sheet] Our Issue Committee 6 – Housing, etc will come together with two other committees to hear presentations that have common issues to all of us. This is so it does not take an applicant forever to get through the process of committees and then the board. Dan: It is a good idea, we have done this before and it does make the process go faster.

Paul Kimmel: [flyer] Announcement of the Art of Peace. This Council is volunteering support to the Valley Village NC with this event. Henry (stakeholder): There is too much infighting in this group; you are taking on monumental issues and most of the issues are going right over the stakeholder’s heads.
Lena Ghafoor (stakeholder): The Bylaws say you can’t be on two voting committees. I am on two but one does not meet. Dan: If you want to put in a Bylaw change you can do that. The idea was not to have a few people control the committee or vote through multiple memberships. Robert Nudelman: [flyer] Announcement: Universal City is celebrating its 90th anniversary next Tuesday with events here at the Heritage Museum. Also the Hollywood Bowl season begins mid June.

Dan: Robert, can we meet here the first Thursday in May?

Adjourned 10:12 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

Jennifer Alwood, HHWNC Secretary