Land Use Report – October/Novembr 2025
October -November 2025 Land Use Report
City Council Files
CF 15-0989-S47 / CPC-2025-6189-CA Proposed Olympic and Paralympic Ordinance – November 2025
In order to expedite the construction of “project activities” related to the presentation of the Olympics and Paralympic Games, it is proposed that a new Division 1.7 be added to Article 1 of Chapter 1A of the LA Municipal Code to “establish relief from planning and zoning review in advance of and during the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games to successfully execute and timely deliver the Games.”
Read the proposed Ordinance that seeks to override Specific Plans, Supplemental Use Districts, Streetscape Plans, Redevelopment Plans, and/ or other overlays of Chapter 1 and 1A of the LAMC for Olympic and/or Paralympic Projects. The projects will also be exempt from seeking a Coastal Development Permit.
https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/70c3b0b4-c91c-4b99-8262-45f063cc49fb/Proposed%20Olympic%20Paralympic%20Ordinance%20November%202025.pdf
In addition to streamlining and removing community review of projects that are deemed to be Olympics or Paralympics-related projects, there are provisions that allow for temporary projects to then later apply to be deemed permanent projects(!). In addition, there is an entire section dedicated to digital advertising signage that will allow such installations to be installed avoiding compliance with the City’s Sign Ordinance and that will override all community plans, overlays, specific plans, etc. that restrict commercial advertising. Digital signs will be allowed to be on from 6 am to 2 am (!), and, once installed, may later be deemed permanent. (It is not forgotten that it was then Council President Krikorian who pressed for expedited review and approval of the Metro TCn digital billboard program. His position as the City’s special events czar presents yet another opportunity for him to increase commercial advertising and its blight across the City.
The only good news is that the Gondola project (referred to in the proposed ordinance as a “Large – scale cable guided transportation project or other aerial mobility projects” has been exempted from the provisions of the ordinance.
Projects that will be eligible: new construction, additions, alterations or repairs, grading, retaining/fence walls, sign permits, swimming pools, change of use, and use of land permits.
Projects not eligible: aerial mobility (as mentioned above), LA Metro 28 by 28 rail projects, previously disapproved projects, hotel development projects (pursuant to LAMC Sec. 12.03, modifications to projects containing restricted affordable units, demolition of housing, for historic structures-demolition as defined in Sec. 138.8 (Historical Preservation), or permanent and substantial alterations of a designated historic resource, and alteration of a designated historic resource without the proper planning clearance, pursuant to Div. 138.8 (Historic Preservation).
The sections referred to below fall under the new Subdivision 40 that is proposed to be added to Subsection 12.22 A of Section 12.22 of Article 2 of Chapter 1 of the LAMC as follows.
Process for a Temporary Project is section (g).
Process for a Permanent Project is section (h).
Sample CIS: The _ nc opposes the proposed Ordinance draft to expedite a broad range of projects that can be made permanent after the Olympic and Paralympic games are concluded. We support streamlining only of installations that will be removed no later than Feb. 27, 2029. All other projects must be subject to the existing code and observant of all plans, overlays, and additional zoning and planning regulations.
=====================================================================================
09-0969-S4 Planning Land Use Fees Update / Annual Inflation Adjustment
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=09-0969-S4
CAO document re: the fiscal impact of the new fees that was part of the recent PLUM motion has been received and referred to Budget & Finance Committee and to PLUM on 11/6. PLUM had approved a comprehensive fee update in October that included an increase of the GPMS from7 % to 10%. The cost of providing planning and Land use Services was increased to $ 233/hour. The full set of recommendations is at: https://cityclerk.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2009/09-0969-S4_rpt_PLUM_10-14-25.pdf. In that recommendation was an instruction (Item # 7) to DCP and the CAO to report back on options for adjusting appeal fees to reduce general fund subsidy. THIS SHOULD BE REVIEWED BECAUSE HIGH/higher fees to file appeals will silence most neighbors and communities from being able to challenge the few projecets that still require a public review process. What is the recommendation?
25-0962 ShadeLA / Shade Expansion / Heat Action and Resilience Plan and the Sustainability Plan
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=25-0962
Approved Energy and Environment Committee as amended 10/21.
.It was also referred to the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games Ad Hoc Committee on 8/19 but hasn’t yet been scheduled to be heard.
The Community Forest Advisory Committee recommends an “opposed unless amended” position on this measure (and on CF 25-0974) which supports “ShadeLA,” the program launched by USC Dornslife Public Exchange and the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation, a collaborative efforts with the City of LA, County of LA Chief Sustainability Office, LA Metro, and community partners in an effort to increase shade in LA prior to the arrival of the coming major events. The major objection to the CF as written & amended is that it fails to call out the importance of promoting and requiring the planting of native species to support biodiversity and thus far has deferred species decisions to LA City departments and community organizations that do not prioritize native species and instead promote a “right tree for the right place” approach that supports the planting of non-native tree species. The planting of exotic or non-native trees in our public right-of-way fails to support our native fauna who rely upon native flora to survive – thus contributing to a biodiversity crisis in what is considered to be one of the most important biodiversity hotspots on the planet. We currently have only 3% native species street trees and under 15% native species park trees. Scientific consensus confirms that a region needs a minimum of 70% native flora to support local biodiversity an urban area. CFAC requests that the City Council specify that ShadeLA plantings should consist of 100% California native species.
A CIS could also call out the loss of mature trees when new housing is developed:
Though it exceeds the scope of ShadeLA, another impediment to achieving the shade canopy Angelenos deserve is the destruction of mature trees that happens when new housing is developed. Developers are sometimes even allowed to replace mature trees with small trees in containers. To provide true shade, we need to plant trees in the ground. This often becomes impossible because subterranean structures are built to the property boundaries and there is no room for tree roots. Addressing the canopy without addressing development’s role in reducing it means we’re looking at one side of the coin when both sides are critical. We need to enact subterranean setbacks so our trees have a chance to thrive.
CF 25-0974: ShadeLA Campaign / Broader Climate Resilience Strategies / Transit Amenities Program (STAP) Referred to Energy and Environment Committee 8/20/25 and heard 10/21. Adopted by Council 11/5/25.
25-0974 City Council Motion: https://cityclerk.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2025/25-0974_misc_8-20-25.pdf
This motion refers to the City’s major policy efforts to combat extreme heat/climate-related hazard in LA via the development of a Climate Action & Adaptation Plan, Climate Vulnerability Assessment, and a Citywide Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMPP). Prior Council action (CF 15-0499, 23-0167 and 24-1228 have emphasized the need for expanded urban forestry, improved shade infrastructure, and broader climate resilience strategies.
The motion refers to the July 16, 2025 launch of the ShadeLA campaign and notes that it “will be a venue for supporting new funding opportunities through, collaboration, building off of many past programs and initiatives where the City has benefited from external non-profit partners taking on tree planting in the public right-of-way with funding from external grants, philanthropy and LADWP.”
The motion formally authorizes the City’s participation in ShadeLA and directs the departments of the City to designate a department liaison to participate in ShadeLA coordination efforts – including “the identification of relevant programs, resources, and related data for ShadeLA to create and maintain a public-facing, open source dashboard to track shade and cooling infrastructure across the City.
The BOE with support from BSS, City Planning’s Office of Forest Management, and all relevant departments to report back within 60 days “with an evaluation of existing processes and recommendations on:
—
25-1278 1600 S Flower St, (1601 -1618 S Flower, 1601-1623 S. Hope St., 426-440 W Venice / Sign District / Transfer of Development Rights. Referred to PLUM 10/28/25. The contents of the file were moved to CF 25-1208-S2 with a last day to act of 1/23/26. : https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=25-1208-S2
The proposal is for a “Southpark Towers Sign District” whose details are found at: https://cityclerk.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2025/25-1208-S2_misc_4_10-28-25.pdf
There is also a second file associated with this project: 25-1278-S1 re: an appeal filed by F. Yadegar and a document submitted by the City Planning Commission dated 10/28/25. That CF was moved to 25-1208-S1: https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=25-1208-S1
This project includes a transfer of development rights from the LA Convention Center ot permit increased FAR from 3:1 to 6:1.
CF 25-1282 Certified Venice Land Use Plan / Venice Coastal Zone / Commercial Use / Ordinance / Amendment. Referred to PLUM 10/28/25. https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=25-1282
CF 25-0843 Citywide Interim Control OrdinAnce / Prohibit Permit Issuance / Prevent RV Parks / LAMC / Section 14.00. Doc submitted by City Attorney dated 10/24.
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=25-0843
25-1265 Greater Community Missionary Baptist Church Historic Cultural Monument CD 7. Cultural Heritage Commission document submitted 10/23/25
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=25-1265
25-1269 LAMC Section 13B.9.1 / Coastal Development Permit / Ministerial Review / ADUs/ Coastal Zone Amendment. Referred to PLUM 10/24
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=25-1269
14-1061-S4 Environmental Consulting Survices / Rivcon Consulting
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=14-1061-S4
25-1264 (CD 7) Rowley Residence / Historic Cultural Monument
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=25-1264
25-1266 (CD7) Hardin House / Historic Cultural Monument
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=25-1266
City Planning/Policy-Related
Housing Element: Missing Middle Strategy Draft Plan
The Planning Dept. has released their proposed plan to incentivize the construction of “missing middle” housing. The proposal is available for review and the dept. will be taking public comment to considered for incorporation in the final draft. A recording of the webinar presenting the plan can be viewed on the City Planning website’s Proposed Land Use Regulations webpage under “Missing Middle LA.”
The Senate Bill 1123 Implementation Memorandum referenced during the webinar is now available. Senate Bill 1123 and Assembly Bill 130 amended the Starter Home Revitalization Act of 2021 (SHRA) to allow a streamlined ministerial approval process for a subdivision resulting in 10 or fewer parcels and corresponding housing development projects of 10 or fewer units. Please reference the updated SHRA webpage for more information.
Timeline: Draft ordinances codifying the SHRA and other state housing laws are tentatively expected to be released for public review and comment this winter. In addition, Planning staff will host a series of public events in local communities to gather input and refine the ordinances prior to formal hearings and adoption later in 2026.
For additional info, review the program Fact Sheet. You can sign up for updates here by selecting Missing Middle LA under Current Planning Initiatives.
For questions or additional feedback, email planning.missingmiddlela@lacity.org
Open Space Element:
Update: Senator Henry Stern’s bill (SB 1425) requires municipalities to update their Open Space Element by Jan. 1, 2026. LA’s Open Space Element of the General Plan was last revised in 1973 ( https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/01ea5f66-3281-488a-930b-f523712fef07/Open_Space_Element.pdf )
The Planning Dept. began work on updating the OS Element in 2017 and formed a working group to lead the process. However, the public was neither notified or involved and following public outcry, that process was halted. There is a document remains from that time:
https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/9d0deae3-7c2a-4a9a-ac01-c05767e75a3b/1Open_Space_Goals_Objectives_Reference_Guide_APRIL2017.pdf
A current search of the internet for Open Space Element-related documents refers to the Environmental Justic Policy Works Programs of the Planning Dept. (https://planning.lacity.gov/plans-policies/environmental-justice ) with specific reference to the Open Space Element Update as follows:
–Open Space Element Update: This work program is ongoing and will continue to advance through the update process, with additional community outreach occurring during the summer and fall of 2025. More information is available on the Department’s Open Space page (https://planning.lacity.gov/plans-policies/environmental-justice#open-space) where one finds the following information:
Ongoing Office Hours – August – September 2025
The Environmental Justice Team is holding virtual Office Hours to answer questions and receive feedback on the Health and Environmental Justice Preliminary Draft. Office Hours are available every 1st and 3rd Wednesday of the month from 11am-1pm, August-September 2025.
Sign up for a 30 minute appointment for a one-on-one with the EJ planners. Office hour appointments will take place over the phone or through video conference (Google Meet), according to your preference. Please note that video conferencing will allow materials to be shared via screen sharing. Language interpreters may be provided upon request.
Book an Appointment
Please book an appointment through the link below to set up an appointment.
Sign-up here
Community Survey Closed – Stay Tuned for Future Opportunities!
Thank you for your responses to the first Environmental Justice Community Survey. We received valuable community feedback that will inform the next phase.
An overview of the survey results and a summary of the first phase of outreach and engagement is available here: Initial Summary. If you have additional comments or questions please submit them via email at planning.envjustice@lacity.org .
Environmental Justice Working Group
The Environmental Justice Working Group (EJWG) includes representatives from over 20 community-based organizations that work on issues related to equity and environmental justice across the City of Los Angeles.
Environmental Justice Working Group (EJWG) meeting materials.
This is the Open Space Element program Timeline:
The following “hit” comes up during a search: “Open Space Element Discussion Paper,” part of “OurLA2040 – Our City. Our Future. Our Plan.” The document is organized as follows: 3.0: Introduction, 3.1: Parks and Recreation, 3.2: Rivers and Beaches, 3.3 Wildlands, 3.4: Connection.” https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/b4199e59-9e91-4d30-b83c-fd42c30254d3/1Open_Space_
It appears to have been written a number of years ago during the past attempt to update the Open Space Element and is not current.
The State issued a technical advisory document in October that can be found at:
https://lci.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/docs/20251006-SB_1425_TA_Discussion_Draft.pdf
“This technical advisory provides guidance on updating the Open Space Element in general plans by Jan. 1, 2026, in response to Senate Bill (SB) 1425 (Stern) (Chapter 997, Statutes of 2022) as codified in Gov. Code § 65565.5. The goal of this technical advisory is to provide local jurisdictions and planning practitioners with robust guidance on reviewing and updating local open space plans to further social, economic, and racial equity, climate resilience, and rewilding opportunities as specified under SB 1425. To accomplish this goal, local jurisdictions can develop and incorporate effective policies and implementation programs in their local open space plans (General Plan Open Space Element) and align these with their environmental justice, land use and safety elements as required by SB 1425.”
“Today, as California faces intensifying development pressures and climate-related risks, open space planning is more important than ever. It offers a framework to balance conservation with housing, transportation, and energy needs while also redressing historical inequities – ensuring a California for all. Open space planning is not simply about land preservation – it is a lever for achieving environmental justice, public health, and long-term climate resilience.”
The City has not yet released its draft update to the Open Space Element.
LA City response to SB 79’s passage and signing by the Governor:
Council File 25-1083: https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=25-1083
Adoted 11/04/25
There are three CIS statements in the file as of 11/5.
The Governor signed SB 79 (Wiener) after the measure passed through the legislature.
Many neighborhood councils adopted motions in support of the Council File which opposed SB 79, Council President Harris-Dawson sent the Council motion to the Rules Committee in March 2025 where he failed to schedule it to be heard. Efforts to hear it at the full Council meeting of _ were nearly derailed when he attempted to send it back to committee for discussion (where It had sat waiting for that discussion since March). The Council turned back those efforts and the measure was finally heard on _ where it was passed and was sent to the Mayor for her signature. With the Mayor’s signature of , the measure may have had stronger impact in Sacramento had the position been formally transmitted to the legislators in a timely manner. However, it was later learned that this was not the case. Additionally, with the stakes as high as they were, many hoped the Mayor would have personally called the Governor to veto the measure. There is no evidence that any such action was taken.
There are great concerns over the many serious impacts of state housing density mandates without clear funding mechanisms to support the resulting impacts on infrastructure, public safety and municipal services. In addition to the impacts to local municipalities, adjacent and nearby property owners to SB 79 projects may be adversely impacted sufferings losses to quality of life, the enjoyment of their homes and/or land, loss of property value, ability to benefit from solar installation, etc.
Additional issues related to the rights of Charter Cities to oversee their land use and planning functions have been presented in earlier challenges to state bonus density laws adopted in Sacramento by other charter cities. Many are hopeful that Los Angeles will join in litigation to protect charter city authority by challenging SB 79.
Neighborhood councils that have not adopted a CIS in support the the current council file motion may wish to consider the following:
“The __ Neighborhood Council strongly supports the motion in Council File 25-1083 (Park), which calls for a report back on the impacts of SB 79 on the City of Los Angeles, including an analysis of the costs to update the City’s infrastructure and utility systems to support projected density from SB 79, and a confidential report to City Council on potential legal challenges and basis for cost recovery from the state.”
Background:
–Park Motion: https://cityclerk.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2025/25-1083_misc_09-16-25.pdf
–Council File: https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=25- 1083
–WRAC motion re SB 79:
https://westsidecouncils.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/WRAC-letter-Assembly-Rules-re-SB-79.pdf
–WRAC motion re density legislation w/o funding mechanisms: https://westsidecouncils.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/WRAC-Letter-Housing-Density-Funding.pdf
Westwood Neighborhood Council adopted the following motion as a measure whose intent is to seek State legislative relief to strengthen local municipal ability to adopt and enforce policies such as the Baseline Mansionization Ordinance:
–Whereas, residents in Los Angeles are concerned that large homes are replacing traditional homes in many neighborhoods and
–Whereas, the Baseline Mansionization Ordinance was found to be too lenient and
–Whereas, developers exploited the loopholes and
–Whereas, in 2017, the City Council revised the Baseline Mansionization Ordinance allowing neighborhoods to tighten FARs, reduce height, and create design guidelines and
–Whereas, in 2019, SB 330 (Housing Crisis Act) was adopted by the State Legislature that removed authority at the local level to regulate home sizes using FAR,
–Now, therefore, the Westwood Neighborhood Council supports amending SB 330 to omit the language in Section 13, Chapter 12 (B0 (1) (A) (c):
–“For purposes of this subparagraph, “less intensive use” includes, but is not limited to, reductions to height, density, or floor area, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, or new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage limitations, or anything that would lessen the intensity of housing.”
–The WWNC will submit this motion to WRAC for WRAC’s support
Gondola LAART Project
The Council Districts in which the proposed gondola will travel are opposed to the project that would have aerial cars (covered in advertisements) travel from Union Station to Dodger Stadium. Litigation challenged the project and the court ruled in favor of the community in agreeing that the EIR produced for the project was not adequate. That court decision required a recirculated EIR to address shortcomings. Now with the release of the recirculated EIR, opponents of the project seek community support to oppose certification of the EIR by Metro, the agency that has sponsored the EIR.
New resolution in opposition to the gondola Councilmembers Hernandez and Jurado, seconded by Soto-Martínez, have introduced a resolution (in Council File 25-1295) to oppose the gondola and urge Metro to do the same. The motion was waived through the Rules, Elections and Intergovernmental Relations Committee on 11/7 and will go to full Council. The Stop Gondola Project Coalition and the Neighborhood Council Sustainability Alliance welcome public comments and community impact statements in support of the resolution. Comments in support of the motion to the Council File can be entered here: https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=25-1295
The Metro board has/had consideration scheduled for November 6. Opposition to the project was urging Metro to defer their decision. Outcome of hat meeting is unknown at the time this report was written.
The Stop the Gondola website can be found at: https://www.stopthegondola.org
There is a link to a sample letter on that page and to the Action Network letter campaign.
FYI:
Video of Councilmember Yaroslavsky’s comments re: Convention Center project and its impacts on City’s General Fund. A must hear attempt to stop the Council from approving the large and costly project:
https://www.youtube.com/live/92OmVD6qKx0?t=10231s