Summary

City Planning Updates and Reorganization

Denzel Henderson from City Planning provided updates from the July meeting, addressing questions about street tree protections, the differences between waivers, incentives, and variances, and early notification systems for planning cases. He announced upcoming events including CicLaVia in South Central/Watts on September 14th and updates on the Harbor LA Community Plan, which was recently approved by the City Planning Commission and will next go to the Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Denzel also discusses the ongoing reorganization that will bring Building and Safety employees into the Planning Department to streamline the development permit process, though this integration is still in the development stage and likely won’t be fully implemented until 2026.

Housing Development Concerns and Regulations

Laura raises concerns about a housing development case in Arlington Heights that seeks to waive all aspects of the Character Residential Overlay Zone (CPIO) requirements. Denzel offers to connect Laura with the housing policy team for a better response to her concerns about whether CPIOs are considered part of zoning. Barbara brings up several issues including projects being put “on hold” without explanation, short-term rental regulations, inconsistent DBS inspections, and one-sided Charter Reform Commission discussions about planning. Denzel explains that applications can be on hold for various reasons like incomplete information and commits to bringing up the suggestion of making deadlines more transparent, while Santos (new Planning liaison) clarifies that EAR case numbers refer to environmental assessment reviews.

ED1 Cases Transparency Concerns

Denzel explains that information about ED1 (Executive Directive 1) cases can be found on the Planning Department website under the Resources tab, though these cases don’t appear in early notification reports. He demonstrates how to access the ED1 case summary page, which is updated weekly with pending and approved projects. https://planning.lacity.gov/project-review/executive-directive-1 Rosalie and Laura express concerns about transparency, noting that neighborhood councils often learn about projects only after approval, preventing verification of claims (such as whether properties are truly vacant) and eliminating opportunities for community input. Laura also raises concerns about the affordability levels of housing units in ED1 projects, questioning whether they truly serve community needs. https://planning.lacity.gov/project-review/executive-directive-1#resources

ZIMAS Case File Access Issues – https://zimas.lacity.org/

Mike explains that when accessing case files via ZIMAS, changing the URL from “case” to “case report” can help retrieve attachments that are otherwise missing due to what appears to be a linking issue. The group discusses concerns about ED One projects where developers demolish existing buildings, get approvals, and then sell the empty lots without building the promised housing, with Mike citing a specific example in Hollywood where three lots were cleared and put up for sale. Laura and others express frustration about the lack of accountability in the development process, noting that despite approvals, many projects never get built, leaving vacant lots and displaced tenants, with Lu advising that communities should immediately notify multiple city departments in writing when problematic projects are proposed.

Planning Application Findings and Challenges

Cindy leads a discussion on findings in planning applications, explaining that they are legally established criteria that must be met for approval. Barbara clarifies that findings are defined in the LA Municipal Code and vary by application type. Denzel advises that when challenging findings, community members should compare to similar projects, cite precedent, and provide substantiating evidence, noting that decision makers determine compliance but can be challenged through the legal system. Keith suggests examining inconsistencies between the project and the general plan, community plan, or specific plans to build a strong case for or against approval.

Cindy discusses concerns about a steep, narrow access area on Sister Elsie, noting a previous case requiring stilts for construction and multiple reviews due to the sensitive nature of the area. Keith and Mike raise issues about emergency vehicle access, evacuation routes, and construction logistics in hillside areas, with Barbara mentioning precedents for construction conditions that can be applied.

Access Concerns and SB 79 Updates

The group then shifts to discussing SB 79, with Barbara reporting it passed the State Senate narrowly and is now in Assembly Appropriations, encouraging members to contact legislators during the summer recess with specific opposition points. Barbara also shares information from Federal Reserve and Rand studies indicating that regulatory requirements like CEQA have minimal impact on California’s high housing costs compared to land, labor, and materials costs.

Charter Commission Planning Process Review

Barbara reports on a Charter Commission meeting where Mayor Bass suggested reconsidering neighborhood councils and area planning commissions. The meeting focused on structural budgeting, with discussions about moving toward multi-year capital improvement budgets instead of annual ones. Vince Bertoni presented on planning processes, noting that most applications are now by-right rather than discretionary, with 80% of cases proceeding without hearings or CEQA review. Various speakers, including representatives from Abundant Housing and Act LA, advocated for depoliticizing land use decisions, eliminating Council’s 245 motion power, streamlining regulations, and making more projects ministerial.

Fire Safety Legislation Opposition

Barbara discusses the California legislature returning from recess on August 18th and encourages everyone to call legislators to oppose SB 79, even if they live outside the district. Joanne reports on the Board of Forestry’s proposed regulations for high fire severity zones, which would require removing vegetation and trees within 5-10 feet of buildings, potentially making Los Angeles hotter and more polluted. She explains that scientists, including Francisco Escovedo, have shown that fires spread structure-to-structure rather than through vegetation, and urges people to write letters opposing these regulations through the Action Network site. Barbara also mentions that City Council file 25-0002-S19 opposing SB 79 has been languishing since March 28th despite having 15 Community Impact Statements supporting it.

Housing Incentive Program Discussion

Cindy questions the definition of “higher opportunity areas” mentioned in a report about the citywide Housing Incentive Program, which has received proposals for 14,800 new housing units with 25% set aside as affordable. Barbara explains these are state-defined areas with good access to transit, education, and jobs, sharing that the California CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps were recently updated. The discussion expands to concerns about gentrification, community planning, and the role of neighborhood councils, with Barbara suggesting they prepare input for the Charter Commission’s upcoming meeting on planning and infrastructure on the 18th. Eric raises concerns about SB 549, which would allow Los Angeles County to establish a resilient building authority with powers to purchase fire-damaged properties.