|
| Quick recap |
| The meeting focused on updates from the city planning department, including the adoption of new ordinances and the launch of the Good Neighbor Program. Concerns were raised about the lack of planning and foresight in the approval of Executive Directive One (ED1) projects, the implementation of community plans, and the effectiveness of the landscape and site design plan. The group also discussed various issues such as street vending, the delay in the Street Transit Amenities Program, and the need for more apartment zoning and affordable housing. |
| Next steps |
| • Sandra to provide an update on the final adoption date of the housing element by the City Council in January. |
| • Sandra to share more information about the Good Neighbor Program, including its scope beyond alcohol-related issues. |
| • Sandra to provide a link to the landscape site design calculator for feedback. |
| • Denzel to follow up on questions raised during the meeting, including Mike’s question about community plan updates, at the next Plancheck meeting. |
| • Barbara to send the city attorney’s brochure on tenants’ rights to Cindy for distribution to the Plancheck group. |
| • Plancheck members to review the Year 3 list of proposed transit shelters and provide feedback to the Board of Public Works before December 18th. |
| • Plancheck members to consider writing to the Board of Public Works requesting Neighborhood Council outreach before approving the Year 3 transit shelter list. |
| • Joanne to send the CFAC document on the landscape ordinance to the Urban Design Center for input. |
| • Cindy to post the recording of the meeting on the Plancheck website. |
| • Plancheck members to share email addresses of land use committees from around the city with Cindy for inclusion in Plancheck communications. |
|
|
| Summary |
| City Planning Updates and Tenant Rights |
| In the meeting, Cindy welcomed everyone and introduced Sandra from the city planning department. Sandra provided updates on planning matters, including the adoption of the landscape and site design ordinances, the launch of the Good Neighbor Program, and the upcoming launch of a new website by the Department of Building and Safety. She also mentioned that the city council had instructed the city attorney to prepare final ordinances for the housing element rezoning program. Sam raised a concern about his clients complaining about rent increases, and Barbara suggested that tenants should be aware of their rights, including those in rent-controlled units. She offered to provide a brochure on tenant rights and promised to send it to Cindy for distribution to the group. |
| New Programs and Website Updates Discussed |
| In the meeting, Sam expressed difficulty in contacting specific individuals for resources, to which Cindy suggested using the chat for contacts. Rosalie shared her experience with a new LLC pushing for evictions in her neighborhood, and suggested seeking legal representation. Cindy and Sandra discussed the new Good Neighbor Program, which is currently only for alcohol-related issues, but may extend to other issues in the future. Keith raised concerns about the program’s effectiveness due to lack of enforcement. Denzel explained the program’s purpose, which is to provide a list of contacts for community members to report issues. Cindy and Sandra discussed the new Landscape and Site Design Ordinance Calculator, and the new LA Dbs website. Joanne asked about the new website’s functionality, to which Sandra responded that it should maintain city services and be easier to use. Jay Ross asked about the new landscape ordinance’s applicability to single-family houses, to which Sandra responded that she would check with her team. Cindy asked about the final adoption date for the housing element, to which Sandra responded that it’s currently with an attorney and she’ll provide an update when she has more information. |
| Concerns Over ED1 Projects and Planning |
| Alex expressed concerns about the lack of planning and foresight in the approval of Executive Directive One (ED1) projects, particularly in terms of parking and affordability. Laura from the United Neighborhoods Neighborhood Council echoed these concerns, highlighting that many ED1 projects are not serving the intended low-income population. Denzel from the planning department acknowledged these concerns and assured that they would be taken back to the department. Barbara raised concerns about the lack of review of ED1 projects and the number of waivers given to these projects. She also mentioned a new real estate LLC, SCAH-LA, which has multiple ED1 projects in the neighborhood. Joanne discussed the need for community input and the potential for a ballot measure to take away the State’s ability to make bills affecting local housing. Mike raised concerns about the implementation of community plans and the lack of clear guidance on changes. Sandra suggested subscribing to community plan email updates for specific community plans. Denzil agreed to follow up on the questions raised during the meeting. |
| Land Use Designations and Overlays |
| Barbara raised a question about the director’s authority to make changes in land use designations under the new recode. Denzel clarified that upzoning is not a term they use and that any changes would require a public process. He also mentioned that the director can initiate a general plan amendment, but this is a public process. Barbara then asked if the director could create and impose an overlay in an area without a community input process, to which Denzel responded that overlays come through community plans and require community participation. Kay expressed her dissatisfaction with John Lee being named the chair of Plum, citing his involvement in a scandal and ongoing ethics violations. She suggested that anyone involved in the scandal should not be chairing the planning committee. |
| Builder’s Remedy and City’s Housing Goals |
| In the meeting, Mike and Barbara discussed the concept of ‘Builder’s Remedy’, a state law that allows cities to meet their housing goals by approving projects that exceed the required number of units. Mike expressed concern about the city’s ability to meet these goals due to factors like interest rates and availability of building materials. Barbara suggested that the city should be exempt from penalties for not meeting these goals, as they are out of their control. Laura then shared an update about the city attorney’s advice to the planning commission and City Council, stating that they are not required to approve all projects, especially those not compliant with zoning. Finally, Cindy asked for updates and Dr. Tom was given the opportunity to speak. |
| Population Projections and Landscape Ordinance |
| Dr. discussed the population projections in Los Angeles, revealing that they come from the Department of Finance and are used to determine long-term state finances. Joanne then presented a letter from Cfac addressing issues with the landscape ordinance, including lack of transparency, enforcement, and the ability to access landscape plans. She also mentioned ongoing work on the protected tree ordinance, aiming to require replacement of significant trees with native species. Keith raised concerns about the effectiveness of the landscape and site design plan, questioning whether it would significantly impact landscape improvements. Joanne responded that while it would have some impact, it might not be as significant as hoped. |
| Wildlife Ordinance and Housing Element |
| Joanne reported that the wildlife ordinance, which had been passed by Plum and was set to be approved by the full council, had been reconsidered due to significant backlash. The city attorney, who had spent a lot of time writing the ordinance, was reportedly upset about this turn of events. Meanwhile, Barbara and Sheida discussed the housing element, which had been passed without upzoning options. They noted that 72% of residential land in LA is designated for R1 zoning, and they expressed concern about misleading information presented during the council meeting. Lastly, Barbara shared updates about the Venice Dell Project and the Midvale Pico interim housing project, both of which faced community opposition. |
| Street Transit Amenities Program Delay |
| Barbara discussed the delay in the Street Transit Amenities Program, which is supposed to provide 3,000 shelters by the end of 20 years but has only constructed less than 50 so far. She urged the attendees to contact the Board of Public Works to express their concerns about the program’s lack of public outreach and the placement of digital advertising on scenic highways. Laura shared her experience with the Adams Boulevard being designated as a scenic highway but not being respected by the planning department. Barbara also mentioned the need for more apartment zoning and affordable housing, and the potential for a resurgence of fostering bids to fill vacant storefronts. Lastly, she mentioned a motion related to the county’s effort to establish a common set of performance indicators for addressing homelessness. |
| Street Spacing, Infrastructure, and Vending |
| Joanne discussed a motion introduced by Lee, which includes three parts. The first part questions the city’s street spacing guidelines and their strictness, suggesting that they might be more strict than necessary. The second part asks about the infrastructure damage caused by tree roots, potentially leading to the adoption of new plastic infrastructure. The third part, however, was deemed questionable by Joanne, as it suggests planting larger box sizes for trees, which could lead to root-bound trees that don’t grow as high. Cindy encouraged the attendees to stay informed about the budget and to send email addresses to receive updates about the monthly meeting. Rosalie raised concerns about street vending, which Cindy acknowledged as a complex issue involving the county health department. Joanne warned that any attempt to curb street vending would face strong opposition from the vendors. Cindy also mentioned the upcoming budget advocates meeting and encouraged the attendees to stay connected to the budget advocates for updates. |
| Addressing Vendor Space Issues |
| Cindy and Rosalie discussed the issue of vendors taking up too much space on sidewalks and streets, causing inconvenience to the public and damaging infrastructure. They agreed that better regulation and education were needed. James from Pakoima shared his concerns about the problem in his area, where vendors were taking up parking lots and sidewalks, affecting businesses and public access. Cindy mentioned the upcoming Olympics and the potential influx of people, which could lead to more issues. The group also discussed the challenges faced by restaurants and the need for more permits and fees. The conversation ended with Cindy encouraging everyone to provide suggestions for improvement and wishing everyone a safe and enjoyable holiday season. |