Land Use Report – April 2021
POLICY
City Measures:
CF 09-0969-S3 “Comprehensive Fee Update”: Cost recovery recommendation from CAO to PLUM / Council now includes an increase for FILING AN APPEAL from the current $86 to proposed $ 16,097 fee (!) – significantly increased from the original recommended increase to $ 158. Two attorney letters were filed in opposition to the recommendation at PLUM’s March 2nd hearing. The item was continued until April 6th but there were difficulties with the ability of those calling in from the valley to connect via the phone lines so the meeting was adjourned without action. Chair indicated that the meeting and its items would need to be RESCHEDULED as a SPECIAL. That is a problem because special meetings require only a 24-hour notification, not the usual 72 hour notice. It may be difficult for community folks to learn about and prepare to “attend” a special meeting. (In addition to this item, amendments to the Temporary Construction Wall Sign ordinance were to have been heard.
ACTION RECOMMENDATION: Letters and CIS Statements to PLUM Committee, City Attorney’s office and Councilmembers need to be sent to insist that there be minimum 72-hour notice provided for these two agenda items.
CF21-0035 Rent Stabilization Ordinance Units / One-to-One Replacement/Affordable Housing at Council 3-3-21. Instruct DCP, in consultation with the City Attorney, to report on the creation of a Citywide one-to-one replacement Ordinance for RSO units, with an analysis of replacing the units on site and having the developer pay into a fund, as well as its impact on existing inclusionary housing programs. Approved in PLUM 2-16-21. Adopted with amending motion 3-3-21. Amendment included these provisions: 1. Instruct the Planning Department and the Housing and Community Investment Department, in consultation with the City Attorney, to also include replacement of covenanted affordable units as well as naturally occurring affordable housing in addition to rent stabilized units. 2. Instruct the Planning Department and the Housing and Community Investment Department, in consultation with the City Attorney, to report back on creating a “right of return” policy to allow displaced residents to return to a comparable unit in the new housing development at an affordable rent.
CF20-0995 Short Term Rental Ordinances / Short Term Rental Companies/Implementation and Enforcement.. Request for report on the progress of implementing and enforcing the City’s Short Term Rental Ordinances; and advise if more remedies are needed to ensure Short Term Rental companies and users abide by established law. Approved in PLUM 2-16-21. Council action adopted 3/3/21.
CF17-0893 Temporary Signs / Vacant Lots / Los Angeles Municipal Code / Ordinance Amendment
In PLUM. Reports received to file 2-17 relative to an amended proposed ordinance and revised Categorical Exemption regarding temporary signs on temporary construction walls and on solid wood fences surrounding vacant lots. Continued to April 6. The majority of proposed amendments are good. HOWEVER, there is one change that is problematic. Under the guise of needing to have “graffiti abatement” on temporary construction walls where businesses are in operation on a property, the revised language would ALLOW advertising on temporary wall signs or barricades on properties where there are businesses IN OPERATION. One could argue that if there are businesses in operation on the property then it is the businesses or landlord’s responsibility to maintain both the property and the construction site. These are not properties unoccupied and unseen. They have people coming and going; thus, they should bear the responsibility of upkeep of their property. The measure would now allow for advertisement placement on the required construction barricades rationalizing it by saying that the participation in the temporary wall program will expend the area of required graffiti abatement to What it does is trade off the continued advertising blight in exchange for periodic graffiti maintenance adjacent to the site (which may already be handled by other agencies). There was a WLA location where the temporary wall signs were lighted with a noisy power generator hidden behind the wall. Lighting of these signs should be prohibited. Was scheduled for 4-6-21 PLUM meeting. Meeting
Adjourned without items being heard. To be rescheduled (see above note re: Planning Comprehensive Fee Update and 24 hour notice for “special” meetings.
CF 11-1705 Sign Ordinance was considered at CPC Feb. 25th. The Commission voted to reject the changes made by the Council’s PLUM Committee and ratified their former support of Version B+ by voting to advance Version B+ to Council (once again). Commissioners Ambroz and Perlman, both members of the Commission in 2015 when the measure was last before that body led the discussion with many comments related to the negative impacts of digital billboards. However, the Commission did not address new issues that were considered by PLUM (such as the placement of billboards on public property). The measure will now return to Council. Staff report expected end of April.
CF 21-0039: Capital Improvement Expenditure Plan / Infrastructure Conditions / Equity / Low-Income Communities of Color. Council {President Martinez’s measure that includes the following: COVID-19 and the nationwide protests this summer in the wake of the murder of George Floyd have brought an emphasis on equity. One of the most pronounced ways in equity is visible in the City of Los Angeles is through public infrastructure and services. Wealthy, often white communities, benefit from regular street sweeping, smooth sidewalks, tree trimming, street lighting, and other public services and amenities. These communities often take these amenities for granted and are often unaware of that many parts of the city suffer from decades of neglect and have an incredibly degraded public spaces and infrastructure with rutted streets, cracked or unpaved sidewalks, no regular street sweeping, and deteriorating parks and recreation centers. http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2021/21-0039_mot_01-12-2021.pdf
CF 20-15-2036 –STAP /Streets LA program update: The item is scheduled to be heard in the Council’s Public Works Committee on April 14, 2pm (Item 2). Consider filing a CIS, submitting comments and speaking at the Public Works meeting. A summary of the issues/concerns with the program as proposed and written by Coalition for a Scenic Los Angeles follows at the end of this report. Two sample CIS statements are also included. The Council File can be viewed at:: https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=20-1536
An interactive map of first year bus shelter and PAK upgrade locations (digital shelters) and for new bus shelters and is now available on line. Note that some locations appear to place digital items on protected corridors that do not allow for digital signage. Interactive map:
CPC -2016-3183-CA / CF 20-1045 Processes and Procedures: CPC heard the proposed updated and revised Processes and Procedures section of the new zoning code at their 3/25/21 meeting and approved the package without any changes. A group of community land use leaders is meeting to identify the changes that are being recommended that will have the greatest negative impact on communities and where new policies will have the effect of reducing the ability of communities to be heard at City Hall on land use issues. What is the NC’s authority on land use? The committee’s work has just begun. Watch for more.
CF 21-0002-S21: SB 10 Koretz Council Motion: to seek opposition to SB 10 in the LA City Scarmento legislative agenda.. CLA supports Koretz motion. https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=21-0002-S21
CF 21-0002-S18 SB 9 Koretz Council Motion: to seek opposition to SB 9 in the LA City Sacramento legislative agenda. CLA supports Koretz motion. https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=21-0002-S18
The LA Green New Deal Learn how to be part of the Green New Deal with this toolkit available for Neighborhood Councils and the public. https://plan.lamayor.org/neighborhood-council/neighborhood_council.html
LOCAL PROJECTS being tracked
Wally’s – 2107-2121 Westwood Blvd.: Project has been shared three times with WSSM HOA and developer is in the process of revising plans to incorporate some commercial activity and additional active uses on the ground floor in addition to tiering the rear of the building’s higher floors and adding measures to preserve the privacy of residents on Midvale, behind the project. The new information, which was developed in response to comments from the community will be shared with project neighbors and a WNC Land Use Committee meeting will be planned prior to presentation to the WNC Board in May. Good progress is being made to come to a hopeful “win-win” for all.
Cloud Kitchen- 2352-56 Sepulveda Blvd.: Project is winding its way through Dept. of Building and Safety review without acknowledgement of issues related to the type of business and its compatibility with adjacent uses or its potential impacts on traffic and circulation in the area. The classification of the business and administrative approval by Planning in December (12-11-20) (!) is being questioned. Per EXPO Corridor TNP, projects that fall within the Plan’s parameters cannot be appealed. Does it comply with the Specific Plan?
Santa Monica Blvd. – Conversion of existing office building to office condo project. Contacts with project rep ongoing. Potential issue related to uses of offices and whether adequate parking exists for a mix of users that includes medical uses (which require parking in addition to traditional office uses).
10390 W. Santa Monica Blvd. 2 – Zone variance for parking requested. Trying to convert an existing office building (with 31,967sq ft existing medical offices, 40,343 sq ft office uses plus 3265 sq ft pilates studio ) to an entire medical uses. ZA 2020-7098-CV ENV-2020-7099-CE. 290 stalls required for full medical conversion. Proposed 201 spaces. 75,575 total square feet in existing building.
1852 S. Bentley Ave. new apartment construction project – Plans recently received. Outreach being made to developer. TOC project. Proposal is to demolish existing single-family house with a new 15,318 sf building, 5 stories (unclear apts vs. condos), 11 units; 1 of which will be affordable = extremely low income, · 14 parking stalls, – 6 below (standard),o Via Bentley, – 7 at-grade behind building (carport) via alley– 4 standard, 3 compact, tandem
Albertson’s Property/ Sepulveda and Palms: Informal presentation made to MVCC leadership this week on a new plan for developing the property. The proposal is apparently for an 8- story project with hundreds of housing units (larger than the Casden/Linea project).
RECENT EVENTS / UPCOMING MEETINGS OF INTEREST:
PlanCheck NC: Saturday, April 10, 10 am. Open to all interested.
10:05 a.m. — Cannabis PCN Process with Jason Killeen, Assistant Executive Director and Rocky Wiles, Compliance and Operations Manager, Department of Cannabis Regulation
11:10 a.m. — Healthy Buildings, Healthy Places Design Guide, which builds upon the Plan for a Healthy Los Angeles and the Citywide Design Guidelines. City Planning Presentation with Ken Bernstein, Principal City Planner Office of Historic Resources; Michelle Levy, Senior City Planner – Urban Design Studio and Danai Zaire, Urban Designer/Planner
12:20 a.m. — PlanCheckNC Round Table + City & State Planning & Land Use Updates
Recording of the March 13, 2021 PlanCheck meeting (and associated chat transcript) that focused on the Housing Element and RHNA can be found at: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1VIeYUTKVFeHHi8rBreYMS_X5WA9hcLc6?usp=sharing
—————————————–
Metro held a Zoom presentation on their METRO PROPERTY JOINT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM on April 7th. Information on that policy which is undergoing some revision, can be found at: https://www.metro.net/projects/joint_dev_pgm/
The recording of the April 7th program will be released for viewing. The program has resulted in the construction 2300 housing units with 2300 more units “on the way.” Goals are for 35% affordability. They have 50 potential sites that will not be needed for construction work or staging of materials in the future which they say could provide up to 10,000 housing units. Current program direction is to focus on affordability – recognizing that affordability in one part of LA may be different from other parts. They say that they seek to stabilize communities and to avoid displacement. Metro has a working group and a policy paper on affordable first programs was apparently summarized for a Metro Board report. Panel discussion touched on some issues worth noting: 1) Should Metro be able to purchase land adjacent to their properties so that larger projects might be built and so that Metro/the community can benefit from the transfer of wealth that occurs for land near transit? (Metro has restrictions on buying land.) Is that “mission creep?” 2) The issue of parking and these projects: Should there be parking included? If so, how much? Mention was made that in other cities parking built near transit is often underutilized. Is that the case in LA? Is there any data to demonstrate what is the experience in transit oriented and transit adjacent projects in LA? 3) Issues related to displacement and gentrification. 4) Wondering how much Federal infrastructure money will come to LA area related to housing from the $213 billion included in the measure. What should be done with that money? 5) Need to explore alternatives in housing: Land Banks, community land trusts (CLT), Enhanced infrastructure financing districts.
(Need to review Biden Administration Housing proposal – Check language that may related to possible stated elimination of “exclusionary zoning.” What does that mean?)
—————-
Park Advocacy Day 2021 – An invitation from the California State Parks Foundation: Join us for virtual Park Advocacy Day on April 28 from 10am – 12pm! Hear from park leadership on their priorities and what is going on in Sacramento. In addition, we will host sessions on the California state budget and legislation impacting California state parks, how to engage in effective advocacy, and how to advocate for parks throughout May.
Register at: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_usGwElJRQmqwWt2b84vgAA
________________________________________________________________________________
LAND USE – RELATED ARTICLES AND LINKS OF INTEREST
https://www.citywatchla.com/index.php/cw/los-angeles/21436-why-the-mainstream-media-tries-to-fool-the-public-with-its-misleading-reporting-on-the-housing-crisis Why the Mainstream Media Tries to Fool the Public with its Misleading Reporting on the Housing Crisis. This article by retired urban planner Dick Platkin includes a section on how to spread the message that building expensive market rate housing does not help the homeless.
———————
https://citywatchla.com/index.php/cw/los-angeles/21486-how-is-greed-is-good-working-out-for-los-angeles – How is “Greed is Good” Working out for Los Angeles? Author/urban planner Dick Platkin explores the forces bringing LA to its knees: homelessness, infrastructure crisis, climate crisis
——————————-
——————————–
From The Daily Dirt. 2/24/21: Gov. Andrew Cuomo has tweaked his pitch to convert distressed hotels and office buildings. A different proposal focuses solely on hotels.
As part of a series of amendments to a bill in the 2021 executive budget, only certain offices — those built pre-1980 and newer buildings in financial distress — would be eligible to be converted into housing. Such buildings must be located south of 60th Street in Manhattan. Hotels must have fewer than 150 rooms and be located in the outer boroughs or north of 110th Street in Manhattan.
The latest version of the measure also has stricter affordability requirements. Owners who want to convert their properties into housing would have to set aside 25 percent of the new units as affordable. Under the bill, they would have until the end of 2024 to initiate the conversions.
Some feel that the measure doesn’t go far enough in creting affordable apartments, and instead incentivizes owners to turn properties into market-rate and luxury housing.
State Sen. Brian Kavanagh has pitched an alternative, aimed at ensuring that conversions occur at hotels in so much distress that changing over to housing for low- to moderate-income tenants would be a better financial bet. His bill would automatically approve switching certain hotels — those within 800 feet of a district that allows residential use — to housing. Certificates of occupancy issued to such hotels would simultaneously be authorized for residential use. Unlike the budget measure, this bill would not expire.
On Wednesday, Council member Carlos Menchaca and Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, both of whom are running for mayor, held a joint press conference to call on Mayor Bill de Blasio to clear the way for outer-borough hotels to be converted into affordable housing. De Blasio, however, has opposed the governor’s proposal. It remains to be seen if he’ll find alternatives more attractive.
—————-
Planning Dept Annual Report issued: https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/98030feb-8406-419f-8118-ec071a8cfb96/202009_AnnualReport2020.pdf
—————–
No Going Back LA group: Published a report entitled: “No Going Back LA Report.”
The independent report, a collaboration of the Committee for Greater LA, USC’s Equity Research Institute and UCLA’s Luskin School of Public Affairs and funded by philanthropy, includes 10 guiding principles addressing areas from housing, economic justice and mental and physical health to youth voice, immigration, and the role of the nonprofit sector.
The report can be found at: https://nogoingback.la/the-report-executive-summary/ or https://secureservercdn.net/50.62.89.111/bj6.4b9.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/USC_ERI_no-going-back_policy_report.pdf
SUMMARY OF STATE HOUSING LEGISLATION AS SUMMARIZED BY AND WITH POSITIONS OF LIVABLE CALIFORNIA. (Inclusion here is not meant to be an endorsement or critique of Livable California’s material. The info is provided as a baseboard for further review. Where LA City action is pending, this is noted.
Good Bills – Councils may wish to consider a motion to City to include support of these measures in the City’s legislative agenda package:
• SB 15 (Portantino) brings back SB 1299. This excellent bill provides incentives/REWARDS not PUNISHES cities. Repays cities for lost retail taxes for 7 years if they voluntarily rezone idled shopping sites for workforce housing. Creates affordable housing. Doesn’t pave over or invade existing neighborhoods.
SAMPLE CIS: The ___NC recommends that the LA City Council take action to include in the City’s 2021-22 State Legislative Program, Support for SB 15 (Portantino) which, if enacted, would provide cities with incentives to convert abandoned retail sites into affordable and workforce housing.
• SB 765 (Stern) Current Accessory Dwelling Unit (granny flat) law forces cities to let developers build to within 4 feet of a neighbor. This bill leaves the setback distance up to the cities, as it should be.
• AB 617 (Davies) Regional Housing Needs Exchange of Allocation would authorize a city or county, by agreement, to transfer all or a portion of its allocation of regional housing need to another city or county. This restores a previously successful law/process.
• AB 1258 (Nguyen) The Department of Housing and Community Development, (HCD) is empowered to adopt the final regional housing needs plan. Cities believe HCD has erroneously calculated these numbers in the most recent cycle, but have no way to challenge HCD in the courts. This bill would subject the final regional housing need plan to judicial review.
• ACA 7 (Muratsuchi) – Local Control Amendment – “a city charter provision, or an ordinance or regulation adopted pursuant to a city charter, that regulates the zoning or use of land within the boundaries of the city is deemed to address a municipal affair and prevails over a conflicting state statute,
• SCA 2 (Allen) proposes removing a barrier from a throwback era that stymies affordable housing by repealing Article 34 of the State Constitution that prohibits cities and counties from building or buying low-rent housing projects — unless local voters approve the project in an election.
Bad Bills
• AB 68 (Salas) Implement State Auditor recommendations on affordable housing. The Auditor’s slam in November on the state’s loss of $2.7B in unspent affordable housing funds, and its failure to ID the cities most in need, made big headlines. But the State Auditor at the same time wrongly attacked the cities. Oppose.
• AB 115 (Bloom) Requires all jurisdictions to allow for residential development in commercially zoned areas provided that the development reserves 20% of the units for affordable housing. Oppose.
• AB 215 (Chiu) An intent bill to strengthen HCD’s housing law enforcement authority. Oppose.
• SB 6 (Caballero) brings back SB 1385. Empowers developers to override cities, buying and destroying stores and businesses to build dense market rate housing. It targets commercial buildings that have had vacancy problems for 3 years, a gentrification attack on shops just starting to recover, such as in Crenshaw in South LA. This bill touts the falsehood that density somehow results in affordable housing. The opposite occurs. Oppose.
• SB 7 (Atkins) Lets developers ignore CEQA if they include a very, very small number of affordable units within a $15 million project. Nearly the same as the failed anti-environment, developer giveaway in 2020, SB 995. Strongly Oppose.
• SB 8 (Skinner) hands a “5 year extension” to Skinner’s 2019 law for wealthy developers, SB 330. SB 330 has a “sunset” clause: it must vanish in 2025. SB 8 extends tha to 2030. It creates NO affordable housing. As vast numbers of the homeless and unemployed struggle, this is wrong to do. SB 8/SB 330 silences communities that review these huge luxury projects, sidelining middle-class and working-class areas such as South L.A. and Inland Empire, limiting us all to 5 meetings. Big projects need more than 5 meetings. We all know hard-working residents need time to win a just small space for kids to play, simple infrastructure, reasonable parking. Skinner’s first bill relied on a sophisticated lie: McKinsey & Co.’s claim that we had a 3.5M housing shortage.The 3.5M lie was debunked. Few legislators utter “3.5M shortage” anymore. Strongly Oppose.
• SB 9 (Atkins) Ends single-family zoning. Identical to SB 1120, the false “duplex” bill. The facts: where 1 house now sits, developers can buy it and build 6-units to 8 units (one new analysis says 10 units). Impacts 21M residents. See detailed Fact Sheet / Action HERE. The public must try to bring numerous inaccurate journalists up to speed. Strongly Oppose.
SEE CM KORETZ MOTION TO Council to seek City’s opposition: CF 21-0002-S18
• SB 10 (Wiener) This SB 902 lookalike bill lets cities ignore CEQA to allow 10-unit pricey market-rate apartments almost anywhere — state Sen. Scott Wiener’s obsession for three years. And it allows a City Council to override voter-approved land-protection initiatives, an attack on our 108-year-old right to initiative. Strongly Oppose.
SB 10 text: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB10
SEE CM KORETZ MOTION to Council to seek City’s opposition: CF 21-0002-S21
• SB 290 (Skinner) This Bay Area legislator again seeks to water down state law that requires for-profit developers to provide significant affordable housing if they tap into a lucrative “Density Bonus” law that lets developers build far bigger market-rate projects than are allowed on the land. This is Skinner’s second attempt to cut back on affordable housing amidst a severe affordable housing shortage that has gravely harmed low-income and poor families and households. Her last effort, SB 1085, died in 2020. Strongly oppose.
• SB 477 (Wiener) requires a planning agency to include in its annual report to HCD information on costs, standards, and applications for proposed housing development projects, plus more. It authorizes the department to assess the accuracy of the information and require that the planning agency correct that any inaccuracy. Oppose.
• SB 478 (Wiener) This truly bizarre bill is Wiener’s latest gift to speculators. SB 478 attacks working-class and middle-class areas, letting developers jam 2 to 10 units of market-rate housing on tiny lots of 1,200 sq. ft. in areas now zoned for 2 to 4 units on normal-sized lots. SB 478 allows more extreme density than in Baltimore, Maryland, which has the nation’s smallest housing lots, averaging 1,700 sq. ft. At the same time, SB 478 encourages McMansions to be built by right, if the developer proposes adding a market-rate ADU or JADU (granny flats) to the McMansion. His bill severely limits a city’s power to control widely hated mansionization. Strongly Oppose.
Bills Under Analysis by Livable California
• ACA 1 (Aguiar-Curry) Lowers voter threshold from 2/3rds to 55% for local government general obligation bonds, sales taxes or transactions. New taxes would fund construction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent supportive housing. Analyze and Decide.
• AB 15 (Chiu) Extend anti-eviction protections for COVID-impacted tenants from January 31, 2021 to January 1, 2022. Analyze and decide.
• AB 16 (Chiu) Spot bill to address and provide funding to mitigate financial impacts of COVID on renters, small landlords, and affordable housing providers. Details not yet available. Watch.
• AB 59 (Gabriel) Changes the way developers review and legally challenge local sewer, water, planning, building permits and other local fees and charges. As we have seen repeatedly, local regulation is NOT why affordable housing isn’t built. Likely Oppose.
• AB 71 (Rivas/Chiu) Creates a statewide homelessness solutions program to be paid for by increasing taxes and closing loopholes on higher income individuals and corporations. Analyze and Decide.
• AB 339 (Lee) State and Local Government Open Meetings would require all meetings to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed legislation. Analyze and Decide
• AB 345 (Quirk-Silva) Accessory dwelling units: separate conveyance. Analyze and Decide.
• AB 387 (Lee) A “spot bill” with no further details available at this time, the Social Housing Act of 2021 would establish the California Housing Authority for the purpose of developing mixed-income rental and limited equity homeownership housing, and mixed-use developments, to address the shortage of affordable homes for low-income and moderate-income households. Addresses a solution promoted to Livable California by Prof Condon. Watch.
• AB 571 (Mayes) Affecting “Density Bonus” projects, this bill would prohibit impact fees, including inclusionary zoning fees, in-lieu fees, and public benefit fees, from being imposed on a housing development’s affordable units or bonus units. Analyze and Decide.
• AB 602 and AB 678 (Grayson) Two “spot bills” on residential development impact fees. Details not yet available. Watch.
• AB 816 (Chiu) – Requires creation of a statewide plan for addressing homelessness and allows for legal action against jurisdictions who do not make progress towards meeting the plan’s goals. Analyze and Decide
• AB 1322 (Bonta) This attack on single-family zoning appears to be based on Bay Area legislators’ belief that California homeowners are all upscale and white. Many single-family neighborhoods are racially diverse, and feel under attack by bills like this one, particularly in Southern California and the Inland Empire. Analyze and Decide.
• AB 1401 (Friedman) The latest unpopular effort to severely reduce parking in new buildings within 1/2 mile of a major transit stop, creating hardship for the elderly, disabled, families with children, and workers who carry equipment. Likely Oppose.
• SB 5 (Atkins) “Spot bill” to allow an Affordable Housing Bond on the November, 2022 ballot. Voters, should we put back part of the money that Gov. Jerry Brown took away in 2010 when he defunded affordable housing in California? Analyze and Decide.
• SB 55 (Stern) Prohibits new development in high fire hazard severity zone. Analyze and Decide.
TRANSPORTATION – RELATED ARTICLES / INFO:
Metro seeks input on modernizing Highway Program
by LA Metro , April 1, 2021
Metro is seeking public input on how to modernize its Highway Program.
In June 2020, Metro’s Board of Directors directed staff to explore ways to modernize the agency’s Highway Program to better align it with policy goals of reducing vehicle miles traveled while exploring the expansion of eligible projects to include active transportation and “complete streets” improvements that focus on all forms of mobility rather than just vehicles.
The changes, if implemented, would open certain Measure R and Measure M funding that is now reserved only for traditional highway or roadway projects to new types of improvements. Those improvements include bikeways, sidewalk and pedestrian safety improvements, bus prioritization and explicitly using reductions in vehicle miles traveled as a criterion for planning and designing projects.
The recommended changes would not affect projects already being planned.
Metro has already circulated its plan to Councils of Governments across Los Angeles County for feedback and is now looking for the public to weigh in on how best to modernize the program. To view the plan, which is split into two documents, visit:
• http://bit.ly/HighwayA
• http://bit.ly/HighwayB
Feedback and comments can be emailed to MMGuidelines@metro.net or mailed to:
LA Metro
One Gateway Plaza, M/S 99-23-3
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Attention: MR MM Guidelines Revisions
Metro intends to present its final plan to the Board of Directors as soon as June for adoption.
**************
| LA City Council votes to support the Safety Stop and E-Bike Subsidies |
| On Tuesday, April 6, the LA City Council voted 14-0 to adopt two resolutions that voiced support for making the safety stop a part of the CA Vehicle Code and the creation of subsidies at the state and federal levels for e-bikes. |
*****************
Bike Lanes Proposed for San Vicente Blvd. (mid city)
From STREETS FOR ALL email newsletter: San Vicente has a protected bike lane on our City’s Mobility Plan, and there is now an official LADOT effort to install protected bike lanes when the street is repaved in June. Our previous survey showed 88% of residents were in favor of protected bike lanes (278 responses). Similarly, another survey by the Wilshire Vista Neighborhood Association showed 73% in favor (142 responses).
But right on cue, the anti-progress crowd is trying to stop the project. A board member of the P.I.C.O. Neighborhood Council has launched a petition in opposition of the project with all the usual NIMBY fear-mongering we have come to expect – spreading falsehoods that the bike lane will “increase pollution” and “ruin commutes”. In reality, protected bike lanes have been proven to reduce pollution by encouraging those who would otherwise drive to use greener forms of transportation. San Vicente is also overbuilt for the number of cars that use it daily, and doesn’t need 3 lanes in each direction. Don’t let a small group of people against progress get the way of a brighter future
**************************
Transportation Town Hall April 14, 6 pm re: 4th Street / Hancock Park
zoom in on April 14 at 6pm to discuss a survey re: 4th Street through Hancock Park. Of interest If you live, work or ride through 4th St in the Hancock Park area.
*************************
LADOT is seeking feedback on the Reseda Blvd Complete Streets project
**********************