Brief summary from WEBEX PlanCheckNC LA meeting held 4-11-20 of things discussed.  This can be incorporated into the next Land Use Report or could be distributed as is.

I also want to alert you to a couple of issues for possible action:

1) BONC is meeting Tuesday at 1 in a virtual meeting.  We are urged to check the agenda and to listen in and participate as needed (and if possible). There is new legal language on their notice pertaining to TDD/hearing impaired and it was suggested that the NCs copy that language and use it if we are publishing any meeting notices of our own.

2) DONE has told NC members that they can comment as individuals since board meetings and positions may not have been adopted.

3) Need to review and comment on CF 20-0416 that will:  1) restart NC meetings, 2)  allow for rollover of funds to next year, 3)  expedite expenditure approval process of NC funds for Covid related work.  

3) Some Neighborhood Councils have gone forward to meet as a board or executive committee (even though DONE staff did not support their meeting).  Notice was accomplished by requesting to have a copy of the EARLY NOTIFICATION LIST used for their area by the City Clerk which they used in addition to any mailing list maintained by the NC.   The NCs were able to get the list by asking their NEA (not directly from the City Clerk office) for the list.  (It sounds like a good idea to get hold of that list for our outreach purposes on an ongoing basis, anyway.)

4) DONE is not posting NC meeting notices even though submitted in time for posting.  Those involved recommended that if we do hold a meeting that we should document the level of support or non-support we received.

5) The City Cultural Heritage Commission is “meeting” next Friday in a virtual session.   It was suggested that their meeting be via video AND phone — not just call in.

6) The City Planning Commission is planning to “meet” on April 23rd.  Concern about stakeholders not having a voice.

7) Much discussion about City approving what they deem to be discretionary projects without any public input.  We requested applications and entitlement packages to be provided electronically – – especially now.  (Some NCs cannot get their mail as it is going to city buildings that they can no longer access!)  Why not require the applicant to provide it since City seems unable to do so?  NCs need more time to do their reviews given the current situation.

8)  Presentation by Dick Platkin on housing.  Copy of presentation linked to this post.  Most troubling comment was comparing the impact of the 2008 Great Recession on housing to the current Covid crisis and coming recession. 7 million families lost their homes in 2008.  According to Wall Street Journal, article on Wednesday, it is now expected that 12 million families will lose their homes (!) — with Wall Street investors “seeing a bonanza in distressed real estate.”  This will further aggregate real estate into the hands of REITs and corporate entities reducing home ownership and creating future and forever renters (or homeless).  Think about it.  In 2008 the Feds spent $12 billion bailing out lenders and NOTHING for borrowers.  Federal housing assistance for low income housing has dropped dramatically since the Nixon administration.  2011 down 4%, 2012 down 10.5%, 2013 down 13.3%, 2014 down 7.3%, 2015 down 7.7%, 2016 down 4.6%.  There are three vacant unit (luxury) for every homeless person in LA.  Supply side (trickle down theory) housing is wrong.  UCLA study has shown it would take millions of new units to drop housing costs.  Solutions to housing mess:  RE-fund slashed social and mental health programs, Revive HUD public housing and subsidize housing programs, Restore CRA public housing programs, Protect existing low income housing from wrecking ball and rent increases.

9)  Presentation by Casey Maddren on Data and Planning.  Failure of city to meet its responsibility to do growth  monitoring per General Plan requirement.  This was litigated years ago and the courts found that the requirement is not a funded mandate and therefore the courts would not force the City to do more than it was doing which was allowing for departments to issue their own reports without coordination, analysis of the final documents, etc.  City fails to look at employment, infrastructure, air quality, water, urban forest, solid waste China no longer accepting our recyclables and this means we are not complying with the language in most (if not all) EIRs that state we are on track to recycle the majority of our solid waste.  Between 2014 and 2019 public transit rail ridership was down 20 percent.  Bus service also declining.  Existing law AB 939 requires the state to recycle/divert 50% of its solid waste to recycling.  EIRs are using old data that includes China’s acceptance of waste.  Website for reference:  WASTEDIVE.  City had to renegotiate its contracts with the monopoly waste hauling firms that now says they must recyle 35% of the waste by 2023.  (It was 45%.)    Question:  Is it time to ask for evaluation of trash program/Recycle LA costing businesses and multi family buildings much money.  Is there an ongoing evaluation?

10)  I reported:  1) one of the 2 lawsuits filed by Fix the City (2301 Westwood project) against a TOC project and the Guidelines is likely moot because the owner has announced he is withdrawing his project application. (I don’ t know what comes next there.)  2)  I gave the link to the virtual Luskin Summit 2020.   3) The final EIR for SCAG’s SoCal Connected will be heard and considered May 7th at the SCAG Regional Council.  Once adopted it will go to the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, in consultation with the US EPA for review (by June 1) California Air Resource Board for a determination that the region has a Sustainable Communities Strategy that can achieve the GHG emission reduction targets, keeping the region eligible for major state funding.  (RHNA also depends on approval of the plan; its adoption will mean SCAG can formally  issue draft RHNA (housing) allocations to local cities and counties.

Pending Council Files:

CF 19-1278 — Rodriguez motion requesting an update / status report on Build LA

CF 20-0416 that will:  1) restart NC meetings, 2)  allow for rollover of funds to next year, 3)  expedite expenditure approval process of NC funds for Covid related work.  At BONC Tuesday.

  I have to track down the numbers.  I pulled these from an email from Ryu’s office

 CF ? — would allow those with alcohol CUPs with sunset clauses that are expiring and have applications pending to obtain their new CUP without a public hearing if there are no changes in their facility and if the police do not object.  (I haven’t read it yet, but believe there should be an opportunity for community input.)

CF ?? — Motion that DBS is to relax quality of life and vegetation related code enforcement activities during Covid (other than fire protection).  My question:  Does that mean that illegal parkway tree killings will go unenforced?  (Would we notice a difference?)

CF ??–Council motion to oppose Fed relaxation of EPA rules during Covid.