Owner / User Office Building 5455 Centinela Ave
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Your April 2017 Neighborhoods First New...Ter
12/12/2017 Your April 2017 Neighborhoods First Newsletter - Mike Bonin - Council District 11 ABOUT MIKE COUNCIL STAFF NEWS ISSUES NEIGHBORHOODS MEDIA TAKE ACTION HOME » NEWS Your April 2017 Neighborhoods First Newsletter Sign Up For Updates Posted by David Graham-Caso 721.80sc on April 28, 2017 · Flag · Add your reaction April 2017 Welcome to the April issue of Mike Bonin's "Neighborhoods First Newsletter!” IN THIS ISSUE: Construction begins on Mar Vista’s Great Street, Mike fights for funding for a life-saving program to end traffic fatalities, and an effort launches Contact Our Ofce to protect people from dangerous oil and gas wells in our neighborhoods... but first, please read this month's Neighborhoods First Profile about a Pacific Palisades neighbor who is helping kids see a bright future ahead of them. Connect with Facebook You can find out more about Mike, meet your CD11 staff and see the latest Connect with Twitter videos and updates from the Westside on our website at www.11thdistrict.com. And remember to like Mike's Facebook page to see the latest news about your neighborhood. Councilmember Mike… 5,188 likes Liked You and 17 other friends like this Vision to Learn: Pacific Palisades’ Austin Beutner Is Helping Kids See Success Pacific Palisades neighbor Austin Beutner has served Los Angeles in a variety of capacities - as First Deputy Mayor, interim head of the Los Angeles Department Water and Power, and publisher and CEO of the Los Angeles Times. In 2012, however, Beutner founded Vision To Learn - an organization that serves Los Angeles in a different, more focused way. -
Doggin' America's Beaches
Doggin’ America’s Beaches A Traveler’s Guide To Dog-Friendly Beaches - (and those that aren’t) Doug Gelbert illustrations by Andrew Chesworth Cruden Bay Books There is always something for an active dog to look forward to at the beach... DOGGIN’ AMERICA’S BEACHES Copyright 2007 by Cruden Bay Books All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system without permission in writing from the Publisher. Cruden Bay Books PO Box 467 Montchanin, DE 19710 www.hikewithyourdog.com International Standard Book Number 978-0-9797074-4-5 “Dogs are our link to paradise...to sit with a dog on a hillside on a glorious afternoon is to be back in Eden, where doing nothing was not boring - it was peace.” - Milan Kundera Ahead On The Trail Your Dog On The Atlantic Ocean Beaches 7 Your Dog On The Gulf Of Mexico Beaches 6 Your Dog On The Pacific Ocean Beaches 7 Your Dog On The Great Lakes Beaches 0 Also... Tips For Taking Your Dog To The Beach 6 Doggin’ The Chesapeake Bay 4 Introduction It is hard to imagine any place a dog is happier than at a beach. Whether running around on the sand, jumping in the water or just lying in the sun, every dog deserves a day at the beach. But all too often dog owners stopping at a sandy stretch of beach are met with signs designed to make hearts - human and canine alike - droop: NO DOGS ON BEACH. -
FY17-18 Park Fee Annual Report
FOR INFORMATION ONLY CITY OF LOS ANGELES Department of Recreation and Parks November 7, 2018 TO: Board of Recreation and Parks Commissioners FROM: Michael A. Shull, General Manager SUBJECT: PARK FEE ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017-2018 SUMMARY On September 7, 2016, the City Council approved the new Park Dedication and Fee Update Ordinance (Park Fee Ordinance), Ordinance No. 184,505, and approved a Resolution relative to a General Plan Amendment to amend the Public Recreation Plan of the Service Systems Element of the City of Los Angeles General Plan. The Park Fee Ordinance implemented a new development impact fee that requires all new residential dwelling units to dedicate land, or pay a fee in-lieu, or provide a combination of land dedication and fee payment, for the purpose of acquiring, expanding, and improving park and recreational facilities for new residents. Pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 12.33 1.2, within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year, the Department of Recreation and Parks (RAP) shall report on each of the park and recreational facilities on which fees were committed in the last fiscal year ·and the appropriate date by which construction of the park and recreational facilities will commence and maintain accounts and prepare reports in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act ( Government Code Section 66000 et seq.). Section 66006 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that each local agency that imposes developmental impact fees prepare an annual report providing specific information on those fees. Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act also requires that the local agency makes findings every five years with respect to the purpose and nexus of the imposed fee, the sources and amounts of all of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements and the approximate dates on which the previously identified funding is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund. -
Travel Summary
Travel Summary – All Trips and Day Trips Retirement 2016-2020 Trips (28) • Relatives 2016-A (R16A), September 30-October 20, 2016, 21 days, 441 photos • Anza-Borrego Desert 2016-A (A16A), November 13-18, 2016, 6 days, 711 photos • Arizona 2017-A (A17A), March 19-24, 2017, 6 days, 692 photos • Utah 2017-A (U17A), April 8-23, 2017, 16 days, 2214 photos • Tonopah 2017-A (T17A), May 14-19, 2017, 6 days, 820 photos • Nevada 2017-A (N17A), June 25-28, 2017, 4 days, 515 photos • New Mexico 2017-A (M17A), July 13-26, 2017, 14 days, 1834 photos • Great Basin 2017-A (B17A), August 13-21, 2017, 9 days, 974 photos • Kanab 2017-A (K17A), August 27-29, 2017, 3 days, 172 photos • Fort Worth 2017-A (F17A), September 16-29, 2017, 14 days, 977 photos • Relatives 2017-A (R17A), October 7-27, 2017, 21 days, 861 photos • Arizona 2018-A (A18A), February 12-17, 2018, 6 days, 403 photos • Mojave Desert 2018-A (M18A), March 14-19, 2018, 6 days, 682 photos • Utah 2018-A (U18A), April 11-27, 2018, 17 days, 1684 photos • Europe 2018-A (E18A), June 27-July 25, 2018, 29 days, 3800 photos • Kanab 2018-A (K18A), August 6-8, 2018, 3 days, 28 photos • California 2018-A (C18A), September 5-15, 2018, 11 days, 913 photos • Relatives 2018-A (R18A), October 1-19, 2018, 19 days, 698 photos • Arizona 2019-A (A19A), February 18-20, 2019, 3 days, 127 photos • Texas 2019-A (T19A), March 18-April 1, 2019, 15 days, 973 photos • Death Valley 2019-A (D19A), April 4-5, 2019, 2 days, 177 photos • Utah 2019-A (U19A), April 19-May 3, 2019, 15 days, 1482 photos • Europe 2019-A (E19A), July -
Industrial Context Work Plan
LOS ANGELES CITYWIDE HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT Context: Industrial Development, 1850-1980 Prepared for: City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning Office of Historic Resources September 2011; rev. February 2018 The activity which is the subject of this historic context statement has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, through the California Office of Historic Preservation. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation. This program receives Federal financial assistance for identification and protection of historic properties. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, or age in its federally assisted programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, National Park Service; 1849 C Street, N.W.; Washington, D.C. 20240 SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement Industrial Development, 1850-1980 TABLE -
CITY of HUBER HEIGHTS STATE of OHIO City Dog Park Committee Meeting Minutes March 29, 2018 6:00 P.M
Agenda Page 1 of 1 CITY OF HUBER HEIGHTS STATE OF OHIO City Dog Park Committee March 29, 2018 6:00 P.M. City Hall – 6131 Taylorsville Road – Council Chambers 1. Call Meeting To Order/Roll Call: 2. Approval of Minutes: A. March 22, 2018 3. Topics of Discussion: A. City Dog Park Planning and Discussion 4. Adjournment: https://destinyhosted.com/print_all.cfm?seq=3604&reloaded=true&id=48237 3/29/2018 CITY OF HUBER HEIGHTS STATE OF OHIO City Dog Park Committee Meeting Minutes March 29, 2018 6:00 P.M. City Hall – 6131 Taylorsville Road – City Council Chambers Meeting Started at 6:00pm 1. Call Meeting To Order/Roll Call: Members present: Bryan Detty, Keith Hensley, Vicki Dix, Nancy Byrge, Vincent King & Richard Shaw Members NOT present: Toni Webb • Nina Deam was resigned from the Committee 2. Approval of Minutes: No Minutes to Approval 3. Topics of Discussion: A. City Dog Park Planning and Discussion • Mr. King mentioned the “Meet Me at the Park” $20,000 Grant campaign. • Mr. Detty mentioned the Lowe’s communication. • Ms. Byrge discussed the March 29, 2018 email (Copy Enclosed) • Mr. Shaw discussed access to a Shared Drive for additional information. • Mr. King shared concerns regarding “Banning” smoking at the park as no park in Huber is currently banned. • Ms. Byrge suggested Benches inside and out of the park area. • Mr. Hensley and the committee discussed in length the optional sizes for the park. • Mr. Detty expressed interest in a limestone entrance area. • Mr. Hensley suggested the 100ft distance from the North line of the Neighbors and the School property line to the South. -
No State Or Local Agencies Have Specific Jurisdiction Over Paleontological Resources on Private Lands
3.10 Paleontological Resources STATE REGULATIONS No state or local agencies have specific jurisdiction over paleontological resources on private lands. No state agency requires a paleontological collecting permit to allow for the recovery of fossil remains discovered as a result of construction-related earthmoving on state or private land at a project site. LOCAL PLANS AND POLICIES There are no regional and local plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to paleontological resources that apply to the General Plan update. PROFESSIONAL PALEONTOLOGICAL STANDARDS The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, a national scientific organization of professional vertebrate paleontologists, has established standard guidelines that outline acceptable professional practices in the conduct of paleontological resource assessments and surveys, monitoring and mitigation, data and fossil recovery, sampling procedures, specimen preparation, analysis, and curation (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 1995, 1996). Most practicing professional paleontologists in the nation adhere to the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology assessment, mitigation, and monitoring requirements, as specifically spelled out in its standard guidelines. 3.10.3 THRESHOLDS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE The impact of the proposed project related to paleontological resources would be considered significant if it would exceed the following threshold of significance, in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines: ► Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature. In its standard guidelines for assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts on paleontological resources, the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (1995) established three categories of sensitivity for paleontological resources: high, low, and undetermined. Areas where fossils have been previously found are considered to have a high sensitivity and a high potential to produce fossils. -
2020 Pacific Coast Winter Window Survey Results
2020 Winter Window Survey for Snowy Plovers on U.S. Pacific Coast with 2013-2020 Results for Comparison. Note: blanks indicate no survey was conducted. REGION SITE OWNER 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020 Date Primary Observer(s) Gray's Harbor Copalis Spit State Parks 0 0 0 0 28-Jan C. Sundstrum Conner Creek State Parks 0 0 0 0 28-Jan C. Sundstrum, W. Michaelis Damon Point WDNR 0 0 0 0 30-Jan C. Sundstrum Oyhut Spit WDNR 0 0 0 0 30-Jan C. Sundstrum Ocean Shores to Ocean City 4 10 0 9 28-Jan C. Sundstrum, W. Michaelis County Total 4 10 0 9 Pacific Midway Beach Private, State Parks 22 28 58 66 27-Jan C. Sundstrum, W. Michaelis Graveyard Spit Shoalwater Indian Tribe 0 0 0 0 30-Jan C. Sundstrum, R. Ashley Leadbetter Point NWR USFWS, State Parks 34 3 15 0 11-Feb W. Ritchie South Long Beach Private 6 0 7 0 10-Feb W. Ritchie Benson Beach State Parks 0 0 0 0 20-Jan W. Ritchie County Total 62 31 80 66 Washington Total 66 41 80 75 Clatsop Fort Stevens State Park (Clatsop Spit) ACOE, OPRD 10 19 21 20-Jan T. Pyle, D. Osis DeLaura Beach OPRD No survey Camp Rilea DOD 0 0 0 No survey Sunset Beach OPRD 0 No survey Del Rio Beach OPRD 0 No survey Necanicum Spit OPRD 0 0 0 20-Jan J. Everett, S. Everett Gearhart Beach OPRD 0 No survey Columbia R-Necanicum R. OPRD No survey County Total 0 10 19 21 Tillamook Nehalem Spit OPRD 0 17 26 19-Jan D. -
Pacific Coast SNPL 2012 Breeding Survey with WA OR CA
2012 Summer Window Survey for Snowy Plovers on U.S. Pacific Coast with 2005-2011 Results for Comparison. Note: blanks indicate no survey was conducted. Total Adults 2012 Adult Breakdown REGION SITE OWNER 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 male fem. sex? Grays Harbor Copalis Spit State Parks 00000 00 00 0 Conner Creek State Parks 00000 00 00 0 Damon Point/Oyhut S. Parks, D. Nat R. F & W 500000 00 00 0 County Total 500000 00 00 0 Pacific Midway Beach Private, State Parks 23 25 22 12 16 18 22 11 65 0 Graveyard Shoalwater Indian Tribe 10 0 0 2 11 0 Leadbetter Point NWR USFWS, State Parks 9 42282926201215 10 4 1 South Long Beach Private 00000 County Total 32 67 50 42 42 38 34 28 17 10 1 Washington Total 37 67 50 42 42 38 34 28 17 10 1 Clatsop Fort Stevens State Park (Clatsop Spit) ACOE, OPRD 0 0 0 0 1 00 1 Necanicum Spit OPRD 0000 0 01 00 1 County Total 000000 02 00 2 Tillamook Nehalem Spit OPRD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 Bayocean Spit ACOE 00000 00 00 0 Netarts Spit OPRD 000000 00 00 0 Sand Lake Spit (S) USFS 000000 00 00 0 Nestucca Spit OPRD 0000 0 0 00 0 County Total 000000 00 00 0 Lane Baker Beach/Sutton Creek USFS 0200 1 00 00 0 Sutton Cr./Siuslaw River N Jetty USFS 0 0 0 0 00 0 Siuslaw River S Jetty to Siltcoos USFS 4 40 0 Siltcoos Spits N & S USFS 11 18 16 11 17 18 18 22 11 10 1 County Total 11 20 16 11 17 19 18 26 15 10 1 Douglas Siltcoos-Tahkenitch (Dunes Overlook) USFS 9 2 19 7 6 19 39 42 22 20 0 Tahkenitch Spit N & S USFS 515035132716 11 0 Umpqua River S Jetty to Tenmile Spit USFS 0 11 10 12 57 0 County Total 14 3 24 7 20 24 62 81 43 38 0 Coos Tenmile Spits USFS 13 15 27 24 24 36 13 16 88 0 Coos Bay N Spit BLM, ACOE 27 27 26 30 41 38 39 52 35 17 0 Whiskey Run to Coquille River OPRD 0000 00 00 0 Bandon State Park to New River OPRD, Private, BLM 22 12 15 8 14 40 16 14 95 0 County Total 62 54 68 62 79 114 68 82 52 30 0 Curry New River to Floras Lake BLM, Private, County 13 14 17 25 24 1 20 15 96 0 Blacklock Point to Sixes River (C. -
National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. 1. Name of Property Historic name: __Bay Street Beach Historic District ______________________________ Other names/site number: __The Inkwell; The Ink Well ___________________________ Name of related multiple property listing: __N/A_________________________________________________________ (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing ____________________________________________________________________________ 2. Location Street & number: __ See verbal boundary description ______________________________ City or town: _Santa Monica__ State: _California__ County: _Los Angeles_ Not For Publication: Vicinity: ____________________________________________________________________________ 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this nomination ___ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation -
LA Zoo Vision Plan
3.14 Recreation 3.14 RECREATION The Zoo is a unique attraction within Griffith Park and the greater Los Angeles area. The proposed Project is expected to increase visitation to the Zoo and surrounding area, creating the potential for additional use and physical deterioration of recreational facilities, including those within the Zoo and Griffith Park. Additionally, proposed expansion to the Zoo and associated recreational facilities could result in physical impacts to the surrounding environment. However, proposed expansion in visitor-serving areas and public parkland would accommodate the projected increase in use, reducing potential for adverse impacts. Therefore, impacts to recreational facilities from the Project would be less than significant. This section addresses recreational facilities that would be affected by the Los Angeles Zoo Vision Plan (Vision Plan) in the City of Los Angeles (City). The analysis describes the regulatory setting, the existing conditions at the Zoo and vicinity, and the potential impact of the implementation of the Vision Plan (Project) on recreational facilities. Impact analysis considers the potential for physical detriment or reduction in access to existing recreational facilities and whether development of new recreational facilities would significantly affect the environment. 3.14.1 Environmental Setting Regulatory Setting State and local laws and regulations have been enacted to ensure adequate provision of recreational facilities in the City. There are no federal regulations that apply to the Project. State Regulations Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) The Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) was established in 1965 by the California Legislature to set forth provisions in the State Subdivision Map Act for the dedication of parkland (e.g., dedication ratio of three acres per 1,000 population) and/or payment of in-lieu fees as a condition of approval of certain types of residential development projects. -
31 March 2019
SMBNEP Semi-Annual Report 30 April 2019 SANTA MONICA BAY NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM Semi-Annual Report 1 October 2018 – 31 March 2019 Report Date: 30 April 2019 Prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency Semi-Annual Report Overview and Structure This semi-annual report outlines and provides an update for each of the FY19 Work Plan tasks for the time period 1 October 2018 through 31 March 2019, the first semi-annual reporting period for FY19. Many of the FY19 tasks continue past efforts. Each table summarizes the current status and a synthesis of updates for each task. For some tasks requiring more description or discussion, an extended narrative follows the table for that task. Note that the FY19 Work Plan was still based on the 2013 Bay Restoration Plan (BRP) and not the October 2018 Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) Action Plan. The scope of this semi-annual report is broad and structured into three overarching Program Areas to match the structure of the FY19 Work Plan. The Program Area identified as Water Resources and Quality Improvement relates specifically to the BRP Priority Issue: Water Quality; the Program Area identified as Natural Resource Protection and Habitat Restoration relates specifically to the BRP Priority Issue: Natural Resources. There has also been focus and efforts in FY19 on implementing programs that interconnect and integrate issues across traditional boundaries such as climate change and comprehensive monitoring. These interdisciplinary issues that cover a broad range of topics are categorized into the Work Plan Program Area: Multidisciplinary and Integrative Programs. The diagram below illustrates the connection between SMBNEP’s FY19 Work Plan and BRP 2013 Priority Issues.