July Land Use Report
Council File UPDATES
CF25-0173: See detailed sample motion drafted by Bel Air Beverly Crest Council below*
STATE LEGISLATION
ARTICLES OF INTEREST
https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2025-07-01/what-will-the-new-change-to-ceqa-do
How major new housing reform will affect homebuilding in California
By Liam Dillon and Taryn Luna
July 1, 2025 3:37 PM PT
———————-
RE: SF proposal to upzone neighborhoods under the Mayor’s “family rezoning” plan
https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/housing/is-the-city-s-family-zoning-plan-big-enough-for-families/article_cba499f0-be3d-42ac-949d-efc7720b3a0a.html
From that article:
——————–
https://sfstandard.com/2024/06/07/san-francisco-zoning-housing-element-united-neighborhoods
——————–
we are not alone in our fight against special interests that want land deregulated:
———————-
CF 25-0173
Detailed motion provided by Bel Air Beverly Crest
In a regular monthly meeting of the ______ Neighborhood Council, the Board weighed the potential benefits of the permit extensions proposed in Council File 25-0173 against the risks of prolonged disruption, health and safety concerns, and possible economic and social consequences.
Extended permits can result in projects languishing for longer periods, causing ongoing nuisance for residents and businesses through traffic disruptions, noise pollution, and visual blight. Projects that drag on can become safety hazards, especially if not properly secured or maintained.
Delays can also lead to increased construction costs, potentially causing developers to cut corners or abandon projects altogether, leaving communities with partially completed structures.
Another concern discussed was reliance on the discretion of Building and Safety inspectors as a basis for decision making, rather than clear, transparent criteria. This creates an appearance of impropriety, and some may view extensions as a loophole that undermines public trust.
The Board voted to oppose Council File #25-0173 unless the following amendments are incorporated:
- Scope limitation
All proposed modifications shall apply solely to by-right projects within the Pacific Palisades disaster zone, where remodeling, major remodeling, or new construction is required due to damage from the recent fire.
- Discretionary project Ineligible
Projects requiring discretional approvals shall not be eligible for permit extensions.
- Ownership restrictions
Projects on properties that changed ownership after the fire shall not be eligible for permit extensions.
- Temporary Permit Duration Adjustment
Amend LAMC Section 98.0602(a) to extend the life of residential permits from 2 years to 3 years from the date of issuance. This modification shall automatically expire 5 years from the date of adoption.
- Extension Limits and Public Oversight
Amend LAMC Section 98.0602(a), Exception 1 and Exception 2, to limit the total number of permit extensions under both exceptions to 2, each not to exceed 6 months. Any subsequent extension shall require a public hearing.
- Evidence Standards and Transparency
Per LAMC Section 98.0602(a), a permit holder shall “presents satisfactory evidence that unusual construction difficulties have prevented work from being started or continued without being suspended”. LADBS to identify and to standardize what constitutes acceptable evidence to ensure a transparent process and minimize discretionary implementation. All granted permit extensions shall be recorded in the online permit history and made publicly accessible.
- Discouraging Piecemealing and Placeholder Designs
To prevent the submission of structurally unviable or “placeholder” designs and discourage piecemealing, changes or additions to the original permitted design shall not constitute valid grounds for a permit extension.
- Site Restoration and Performance Security
To ensure proper enforcement of LAMC Section 98.0602(b) – “Permits which have expired shall have the site, building or project restored to the condition which existed immediately prior to the commencement of work described by such permit” this section shall be amended to include: “ All permit applicants shall be required to provide adequate security to guarantee the faithful performance and proper completion of any permitted work. The amount of security shall be determined by LADBS as necessary to ensure proper completion of work ”
| Meeting summary for PlanCheckNC Zoom Meeting (07/12/2025) Below is AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy. | |
| Link to YouTube Video of meeting: https://youtu.be/gIWYjjCpWNE | |
| Quick recap The meeting began with introductions and updates on various legislative and budget matters, including discussions about SB 79 and the Budget Advocates event. The group addressed planning department changes, community plan updates, and concerns about housing projects and tree removals, with Denzel providing insights on department operations and website resources. The conversation ended with discussions on legal and procedural issues related to planning applications, CEQA compliance, and fire safety regulations, along with concerns about public access to building plans and the need for improved documentation and enforcement processes. Next steps Barbara: Draft a motion for Neighborhood Councils regarding the systemic problem of unlimited waivers in project applications CFAC and LAFD: Prepare a report for City Council detailing the potential impacts of state fire regulations on heat, biodiversity, and air pollution in Los Angeles Community Members: Contact State leaders in Senate and Assembly before summer recess regarding the CEQA cleanup bill about removing exemption for advanced manufacturing facilities and broadening protected areas definition Community Members: Contact Local Government Committee members to oppose SB79 before the committee hearing Community Members: Submit public comments to the State Board of Forestry regarding hydrated vegetation regulations before the July 24th meeting Denzel: Research and provide information about the threshold between waivers vs. variances in planning cases and report back at the next meeting Denzel: Look into the case regarding tree planting on second floor that Joanne raised and report findings Denzel: Discuss with Congress of Neighborhoods planning committee about adding a second roundtable session after the Planning 101 presentation Denzel: Prepare and share planning forms and different types of findings at next month’s meeting Denzel: Research and provide the name of the new bureau that will handle planning department functions. The new bureau name is Development Services Bureau (“Bureau”) within the Department of City Planning (DCP), and the functional transfer of Zoning Review staff from the Department of Building and Safety (DBS) to DCP. Reference Council File: https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2025/25-0572_misc_5-27-25.pdf Denzel: Research and provide information about procedures for re-establishing vesting rights after permit expiration Denzel: Prepare an update presentation about the new Bureau of Planning Department for the next Plancheck meeting Barbara: Send contact information for Speaker of Assembly and Senate President pro tem to Cindy along with the land use report Barbara: Send list of phone numbers and names of Local Government Committee members regarding SB 79 opposition Barbara: Add council file link for off-street parking measure to the land use report Laura: Share references for Supreme Court cases regarding city’s discretion to deny projects and redevelopment plans Joanne: Share Dr. Escobedo’s fire science presentation recording and slides with interested meeting participants Cindy: Write a letter to Kevin James and James Heath regarding the questionable reintroduction of the 10-year-old expired subdivision permit case Defensible Space Working Group: Create an interactive map to help property owners determine if they are in the high fire severity zone Defensible Space Working Group: Continue advocacy efforts to get State Board of Forestry to hold meetings in Southern California Defensible Space Education Group: Continue developing educational materials including photoshopped visualizations of vegetation removal impacts Defensible Space Outreach Group: Continue public outreach efforts to inform property owners about the 3-year compliance period and alternatives to tree removal Summary Budget Advocates and Neighborhood Updates The meeting began with introductions and welcome to new participants, including Musa Avsar, a school principal from Northridge. Cindy discussed the possibility of listening in on an update about SB 79 from Livable California during the meeting. Glenn provided an update on the recent Budget Advocates event, with 261 registrants and featured presentations from various officials. The group discussed the importance of appointing budget representatives from each neighborhood council. Several members, including Dr. Tom, announced their retirements and plans to move, while Denzel was expected to provide updates from the planning department. Legislative Calendar and Planning Updates Barbara reviewed the legislative calendar, highlighting key dates for bill progressions and committee actions. She noted that SB 79, which opponents are actively working against, must go through the fiscal committee by August 29th and can be voted on by the floor until September 12th. Denzel, representing the Los Angeles City Planning Department, discussed ongoing changes within the department, including a new liaison and upcoming workshops with neighborhood councils to improve collaboration. He also demonstrated the planning department’s website resources, which provide detailed information on code amendments, project statuses, and contact details. Denzel noted that he assists in seeing that the city planning website updates are there. Housing Project and Community Planning Joanne raised concerns about a controversial housing project approved by the planning commission despite widespread opposition, including tree removal and inadequate space for displaced residents. Denzel agreed to investigate the case and review the planner’s decision to allow second-story tree planting, which Joanne questioned as contrary to city policy. August highlighted the delayed progress of the Southwest Valley Community Plan update, which has been ongoing for over six years without significant development. Denzel explained the current status of community plan updates showing where to see the latest status on the City Planning website and committed to connecting August with relevant resources. The conversation ended with Laura suggesting a two-part session for the Congress planning presentation to address the numerous questions from attendees. Planning Application Information Sharing Issues The meeting focused on issues with the sharing of planning applications between the planning department and neighborhood councils, where Laura explained that while our PlanCheckNCLA previous agreement required sharing all applications, the department is now only sharing discretionary ones, leading to incomplete information. Laura also discussed recent Supreme Court rulings regarding zoning compliance and redevelopment plans, emphasizing that cities are not required to approve inconsistent applications but can grant necessary changes. The discussion concluded with concerns about the city attorney’s handling of a recent Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) hearing, where incorrect information was provided to council members, and Laura suggested that this should be reported to John Heath, who oversees land use at the city attorney’s office. City Projects Legal Strategy Planning – The meeting focused on planning and legal issues related to city projects. Denzel discussed the role in preparing attorneys for public hearings and emphasized the importance of addressing misinformation during these events. Laura raised concerns about the city’s history of losing CEQA cases and the lack of comprehensive memoranda explaining these losses. Mike commented on the scripted nature of PLUM meetings and the city attorney’s influence on council decisions. The group also discussed the importance of documenting specific violations when opposing projects, rather than simply expressing general opposition. CEQA Reforms and Housing Bills — Barbara discussed the recent passage of AB 1311, which was incorporated into the Budget trailer bill and significantly weakened CEQA’s environmental protections. She emphasized the need for a cleanup bill to address concerns about advanced manufacturing facility exemptions and habitat protection for endangered species, urging constituents to contact state leaders before their summer recess. Barbara also highlighted SB 79’s upcoming hearing in the Assembly Local Government Committee and warned against its passage, noting it would create unfunded mandates and bypass existing housing plans. Finally, she reviewed several new Los Angeles planning measures, including proposals for single stairway exits in multifamily buildings, ministerial entitlement processes for affordable housing, and various infrastructure and ADU-related initiatives. Zoning Waivers vs. Variances The group discussed the differences between zoning variances and waivers, with Denzel explaining that variances are used for requests not covered by the codebook, while waivers are for specific requirements like sidewalk improvements. Laura raised concerns about a specific case in South LA where an applicant requested multiple waivers and incentives, potentially exceeding the threshold for what should be considered a variance. The discussion highlighted the need for clearer guidelines on when waivers become variances, and Denzel agreed to research this further. Planning Department Policy and Transfers — The meeting discussed several key topics. Laura explained that a city attorney review would not be subject to public records requests and suggested that the planning department could create a policy limiting waivers to a certain number, with 12 being considered reasonable. Barbara mentioned writing a motion for neighborhood councils about a systemic problem and thanked those who commented on an RFP for digital kiosk advertising, which was sent back to the Public Works Committee. Denzel clarified that 42 employees from LADBS were transferred to the planning department to perform planning work previously done by building and safety, and he promised to provide more information about the new bureau’s name and responsibilities at the next Plancheck update. The group also discussed enforcement issues, with Barbara noting that building and safety does not consistently enforce fines and penalties, which many agreed was a problem of corruption rather than politics. Building Plans Accessibility Challenges — The meeting focused on the accessibility and management of building plans, particularly the challenges faced by the public and city departments in accessing and enforcing compliance with these plans. Cindy and Barbara raised concerns about the lack of public access to project plans, which hampers their ability to enforce compliance and address issues such as unauthorized construction changes. Denzel emphasized that complaints can be submitted without access to plans, as the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) should investigate and document findings. Laura and Sheida clarified that while plans are copyrighted, they are not truly proprietary, and there are limited opportunities for public viewing under controlled conditions. The discussion highlighted the need for clearer processes and potential legal challenges to improve public access to building plans. Legislative Process and City Reorganization — Cindy shared her experience attending a state legislative hearing where senators asked about community input but still voted in favor of the measure, highlighting the importance of public participation despite the outcome. Barbara raised concerns about procedural issues in the hearing, particularly regarding the involvement of the bill’s author State Senator Scott Weiner as the committee chair. Joanne provided additional context about the governor’s involvement in the legislative process and mentioned that AssemblyMember Schultz indicated the governor may reintroduce bills to reinstate CEQA requirements. The group also discussed the recent reorganization of the City Forest Office, which has been moved from the Board of Public Works to the Department of City Planning. Opposing Fire Safety Regulation Changes –Joanne discussed the proposed state regulations for fire safety in high fire severity zones, highlighting concerns about the impact on urban areas and the scientific evidence against removing hydrated vegetation. She explained that CFAC is working with experts to create a report for the City Council detailing the potential devastation and environmental impact of the regulations. Joanne also mentioned the formation of a defensible space working group focused on education and outreach, as well as efforts to advocate against the regulations at state meetings. She encouraged attendees to write public comments to the State Board of Forestry, emphasizing the importance of supporting hydrated vegetation as a fire safety measure. Subdivision Proposal Fire Risk Hearing The meeting focused on a recent hearing regarding a subdivision proposal in a high fire-prone area. Cindy shared details about the hearing, including concerns raised by community members about building in a high-risk area and the use of outdated reports. The group discussed the need for updated studies and proper permitting processes. Barbara suggested writing to city officials to clarify how an expired permit application was revived. Anna mentioned a charter school organization’s approach to seeking approval for new school sites. The conversation ended with a reminder of the next meeting date. | |
| AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy. |