Chair: Cindy Cleghorn – CindyCleghorn@Mac.com
Next meeting: Mar. 12 – Topic & Location TBD.

Other meetings:
ReCode LA: Wed., Feb. 26 (4th Wed.), City Hall Rm. 525, 6-8 pm. Website: http://recode.la/
Member Sharon Commins encourages all NCs to attend. Current work is the Downtown Specific Plan, and many of those tenets will be included in future Community Plans (including yours)

Planning 101 workshop: Canoga Park NC, Wed., Feb. 17. Open to all. Your NC can call Cindy C. for a workshop, too.

1. General
SB 473 (VMT initiative and implementation for CEQA traffic studies): UCLA Lewis Center Study shows many maps of transit areas. There are several definitions of “transit area”: Dedicated line, dedicated station, high-quality transit corridor.

CLAW (animal/wildlife advocacy gorup): Proposal in PLUM to connect fragmented wildlife corridors as part of CEQA/Planning process. Seeks NC support.

Small Lot Subdivision: Comments due by Feb. 17 hearing.
City amendments propose:
Rear setback of 15 ft. next to R1/R2 parcels (complies with underlying R zoning), but only 10 ft. next to R3/R4 parcels (5 ft. less than underlying R zoning). Existing is only 5 ft. in rear.
Historic bungalows can be converted to ownership.
Stricter/stronger guidelines for architectural design.
Some NCs (include Westside Alliance) call for additional amendments: Rear setback of 15 ft. for all parcels (which complies with underlying R zoning), no cantilevered building over driveways and open space, codify Guidelines into the ordinance (otherwise, developers ignore and Planning Dept. cannot enforce).

Sign Ordinance: Councilor Englander’s pro-billboard amendments in PLUM were rejected by Planning Commission (amnesty, CUP process to allow billboards anywhere), and moves to Council. New ordinance would prohibit amnesty for existing illegal billboards, allow billboards only in designated Sign Districts.

Conditions for alcohol service: Citizens task force formed to determine what restrictions that the City can place. City attorney refuses to enforce voluntary conditions related to alcohol, and says that only State ABC has that authority.

4 proposed motions for NCs (passed by Westside Alliance of NCs):
1. The _________ [NC/CC]  supports Sen. Feinstein’s bill (S. 2013), the Los Angeles Homeless Veterans Leasing Act of 2015, to place permanent supportive housing on the West L.A. V.A. campus.

2. The _________ [NC/CC] supports the draft master plan for the V.A. West L.A. campus, which includes nearly 2,000 units of housing and new services.

3. Whereas the City Attorney; the Dept. of Building and Safety; and City Council continue to selectively enforce existing zoning ordinances to the detriment of our stakeholders’ quality of life, including, but not limited to, short-term rentals, illegal signs, illegal boarding houses and the like.
Therefore the _____ [NC/CC] demand the city comply with its own ordinances and laws and immediately enforce all applicable zoning and building codes unless duly amended.

4. The ________ [NC/CC] supports amending the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance such that all SLS projects shall comply with the land’s underlying zone, including setbacks, and further amended to prohibit cantilevered construction over required open space, including driveways and required setbacks.

2. Neighborhood Integrity Act ballot proposal:
Status: Approved by City Attorney and City Clerk, collection of signatures to place on ballot is due Apr. 26 (65,000 needed).

Main points:
Moratorium of 2 years on General Plan Amendments that affect a single project (2 years is the maximum legal duration of a moratorium).
Moratorium on building permits for Zone Changes that are outside the Land Use category (ZCs that bring zoning into compliance with General Plan are allowed).
No reductions in parking for big projects.
Require Planning Dept. to oversee EIRs and pay the EIR consultant (but may require applicant to reimburse for costs).

Reasoning:
Citizens claim that City Hall negotiated developer agreements and community plans during the 1980s and 1990s with developers in private, then the pre-approved plans were taken to the public for approval, thus cutting the public out of the public process.
They cite Herb Wesson’s approval of a 20-story skyscraper in mid-Wilshire and the Palladium and Millenium skyscrapers in Hollywood.
City’s 2020 Commission endorsed General Plan update, but citizens believe this recommendation has been ignored and no update has begun (though 8-10 community plan updates are in process).

Proponents: Jill Stewart (former investigative reporter/editor for L.A. Times, L.A. Weekly), Jack Humphreville (Greater Wilshire NC, city hall activist, DWP reform advocate).

Opponents: Coalition of City Councilmembers, past Planning Dept. members, construction unions, developers/builders (market-rate and affordable who seek business partnerships with market-rate builders), legal aid groups.

Context:
2010: Mayor Villaraigosa fired Planning Director Gail Goldberg because she wanted to do “real planning” and opposed spot zoning and converting M to Residential. Blue collar jobs were lost as M land in downtown was converted to expensive housing.
1985 Prop. U was passed to limit all C zoning to 1.5 FAR. This was a citizens’ “revolt” that resulted from City Hall placing developer interests over citizen/neighborhood interests.
Late 1960s: A councilman was arrested for bribery from developers, and planning controls were implemented (GPA requirements of 15+ acres, etc.).

Citizens are wary that many developers (and out-of-town developers who trade financial support) have contributed to oppose this and other city initiatives (Measure B DWP solar deal to give unions a monopoly on installation in 2009, Prop. A proposed sales tax increase in 2013).

Goal of proponents:
Force City Hall to update Community Plans and end back-room deals that result in out-of-character zone changes that greatly increase developers’ profit, instead of doing upfront comprehensive planning in collaboration with neighborhoods.
2 years is a short time for a moratorium and may not completely break the developers’ hold on city hall, but this is a first step. It will serve notice to the City to enact its required reforms/processes and force them to start updating the General Plan. (Note that some Community Plans are being updated, but the process has taken a long time.)

Opponents’ concerns:
Moratorium will decrease construction and eliminate jobs: Last recession of 2008 was caused by real estate overspeculation, so if you look at it that way, relying on temporary construction jobs creates real estate bubbles that will lead to larger job loss.
Need to build up the city to make it attractive to younger, smart, wealth millenials.

Analysis:
80-90% of all building is by-right, and will not be affected by this proposal. Large amounts of affordable housing (and all housing) can still be built in R3, R4, and C zones during the proposed moratorium, and they don’t need zone changes or general plan amendments that would be halted. The density bonus provides all the extra incentives for affordable housing. Also, market-rate senior housing can be increased by using the density bonus.
Los Angeles is zoned for 6,000,000 persons as it is, and developers can build by-right with the density bonus (and do not need zone changes and general plan amendments).
Density bonus: Will not be affected by this proposal.

Gentrification: Most of the housing built today is luxury (and has a 12% vacancy) and not affordable. This proposal will not affect rate of gentrification.

Ballot box planning: Opponents claim this is bad, but did not explain why/how. Perhaps, elected officials and city staff oppose losing authority/ power?

City code requires that General Plan Amendments cover a large geographic area (15+ acres) and/or have economic/ demographic justification, and prohibits spot GPAs. These larger GPAs that are not tied to a single project will still be allowed.

Tangential issues:
Urban development vs. suburban sprawl. May be better to increase density in targeted areas near transit, to increase transit use and reduce environmental destruction.
L.A. is not growing as fast as SCAG projections, so increased density may not be needed. (City is zoned for 6,000,000, projection is for 4,500,000 in 2010, actual was 4,100,000 in 2010). Mature city with 1.2% increase annually. City may want to increase population with urban pioneers and high-paid tech millenials.
Most new housing is expensive, not affordable, but increasing overall housing supply reduces cost (albeit low reduction), per supply v. demand.
Transit use declined compared to 1985, but that was a peak use because fares were frozen at low rates because of consent decree. Transit use would increase if wealthy, car-driving public would allow bus lanes and bike lanes.
MTA wants to monetize its land, so it may be OK to build high density. Housing may need to reduce parking to “force” residents of those buildings to drive less.