Meeting summary

Chat

Quick recap

The meeting covered updates on various planning initiatives including the Woodland Hills Country Club project, Orange Line TNP, and historic preservation efforts. Discussions focused on community engagement challenges, enforcement of planning codes, and the need for improved communication between neighborhood councils and the planning department. The group addressed concerns about development conditions, city attorney roles, and the impact of large institutional investors on the housing market, while emphasizing the importance of community input and better tracking of project files.

Next steps

• Denzel: Tag PlanCheckNC and ensure they are included in the upcoming stakeholder outreach group for objective standards in historic zones, and coordinate their involvement in January/February outreach and events.
• Denzel: Provide clarity in the January liaison update regarding public hearing notice requirements and project notice signage, including when large project signs are required and who is responsible for their posting.
• Denzel: Look up and report back on the decision-maker/department responsible for whether HPOZ (Historic Preservation Overlay Zone) meetings are recorded, and provide this information to the group.
• Denzel: Follow up with information about the requirements and process for large public notice signs on development projects, including who makes decisions about their use and how to advocate for their implementation.
• Denzel: Investigate and clarify which city agency is responsible for enforcing temporary construction wall sign regulations, and report back to the group.
• Laura: Create a checklist of all required items that an entitlement application must contain (if relevant to the project type/area), including a line for other types of entitlements, and share with the group.
• Cindy: Look for and share the original signed Planning Pilot Program/PlanCheckNC agreement (if available) for group review.
• Cindy: Schedule and coordinate an interim meeting (proposed for January 24th) to discuss best practices, potential speakers, and topic lineup for upcoming meetings.
• Cindy: Reach out to Kevin Keller to schedule a PlanCheckNC meeting with him, and coordinate agenda/questions in advance.
• Sheida: Forward relevant charter reform/mini-assembly materials to August and request a statement on intent/preamble for the charter, and include August’s feedback in the mini-assembly input.
• Denzel: Follow up with LADBS (or appropriate liaison) regarding enforcement of determination letters and clarify which agency is responsible for enforcement, and report back to the group.
• Denzel: Monitor and request updates from community plan teams (e.g., Southwest Valley), and continue to push for status updates to be shared with stakeholders.
• Denzel: Provide a bigger update in February regarding SB79 implementation and related modeling work by the department.
• Denzel: Put information about the February historic preservation objective standards outreach event in the chat and on the community corner section of the website for January.
• Denzel: Put the code section for the city attorney’s role and responsibilities in the chat for group reference.
• Denzel: Put the link to the Orange Line TNP update in the December community corner section for group reference.
• Denzel: Put information about the February historic preservation event in the chat and on the community corner section for January. (Duplicate of 14, but listed as separate in transcript)

Summary

Woodland Hills Development Project Update

The meeting began with introductions and a discussion about a charter reform meeting happening concurrently. Denzel, a planning liaison for Los Angeles City Planning, provided updates on the Woodland Hills Country Club project, clarifying that the developer is using a state law regarding street size to add density, not zoning designations. Denzel mentioned that Council District 3 has taken an interest in the project, and a motion is expected in the PLUM committee this Tuesday. He encouraged attendees to stay informed by signing up for the interested parties list and following the PLUM meeting.

Historic Preservation and Planning Updates

The meeting focused on updates and discussions regarding various planning and community initiatives. DenZ provided information on the Orange Line TNP and SB79, noting that comments and responses were posted on the December liaison update on the community corner section of the planning website. The historic preservation team is working on meeting deadlines for objective standards in historic zones, with a grant-related deadline looming. DenZ also mentioned an upcoming event in February with the LA Conservatory to discuss these standards. The Westwood Boulevard safety and mobility project was noted as an LADOT initiative with minimal planning jurisdiction. August clarified details about street right-of-way requirements for commercial corridors, and Cindy inquired about support for city-level initiatives. Laura raised concerns about inconsistencies in information provided by the planning department regarding objective standards and the grant for ADUs in historic districts, emphasizing the need for clarity and response to neighborhood council letters.

REAP Grant and Task Group

The group discussed the REAP grant program, where Laura explained that REAP 2.0 received funding after being rejected for various reasons, and was later repurposed to focus on missing middle projects and subjective standards. Barbara proposed forming a task group of neighborhood council members with historic properties expertise to advise the planning department, as the deadline for evaluations approaches. The discussion concluded with Barbara raising concerns about how city attorney roles are often misunderstood by candidates and voters, and DenZ shared a link to the city’s legal code for further reference.

Southwest Valley Community Plans Update

The meeting focused on updates regarding community plans and the status of the Southwest Valley Community Plans, which are entering the draft EIR phase after completing the consulting phase. Denzel clarified that the consulting phase involved refining plan concepts and selecting general land use designations, with maps detailing proposed and existing land uses now available on the website. August expressed frustration over the lengthy timeline and lack of communication, while Cindy inquired about the role of technology in community engagement. Barbara raised concerns about the Westwood Safety and Mobility Project, highlighting issues with its disconnected approach to land use and traffic safety, and noted that high-injury network street designations do not consider traffic volume.

Planning Code Enforcement Ambiguities

The meeting focused on the enforcement of planning codes and determination letters, with Barbara highlighting issues with temporary construction wall signs and their impact on city aesthetics and revenue. Denzel clarified that while planning has a mobility plan, enforcement of codes like temporary wall signs falls under LADBS, though there’s ambiguity about which agency is responsible for enforcement. Sheida raised concerns about determination letters issued by the planning department, noting that many are not enforceable due to unclear agency responsibilities, which LADBS acknowledged as a problem. The group discussed the need to clarify enforcement agencies in determination letters and the importance of updating outdated community plans.

LADBS Enforcement and Code Challenges

The meeting focused on several key issues, including the enforcement challenges with LADBS and the need for more effective code enforcement. Mike highlighted that LADBS often fails to enforce laws due to lack of access or because cases are closed without proper action. Denzel discussed the need to invite PlanCheck to earlier stages of outreach and the importance of public hearing notices, while Cindy raised concerns about the lack of large, noticeable signs for project proposals in Los Angeles. The group also discussed the need for recordings of HPOZ meetings and the potential impact of SB677 on the city’s ability to challenge state laws. Denzel agreed to follow up on several of these issues, including the requirements for public hearing notices and the decision-making process for recording meetings.

Development Conditions and Policy Changes

The meeting discussed several key agenda items, including a motion to study the removal of development conditions (T, Q, and D classifications) in the City Council meeting on Tuesday, which raised concerns about the legality of removing conditions negotiated with communities. Barbara highlighted the need for community input on any potential removals and noted that the original motion was weakened by removing exemptions, such as billboards, which could override local sign ordinances. The group also discussed the proposed Olympic streamlining ordinance, which allows temporary installations to become permanent, and the implications of state legislation (SB677) that could force local agencies to cover unfunded mandates related to land use measures. Additionally, there was mention of President Trump’s announcement about banning large institutional investors from buying single-family homes, which led to a decline in home-building stocks.

Investor Impact on Housing Market

Barbara and Sheida discussed how large investors are contributing to the housing crisis by purchasing single-family homes and turning them into rental properties, which drives up housing costs. August and Sheida debated the inclusion of a Bill of Rights and an ombudsman in the city’s charter preamble, with August suggesting it should outline the charter’s intent rather than enforceable laws. Cindy shared a pilot program from 2008 that aimed to improve communication between the planning department and neighborhood councils, and she sought feedback on its relevance in the current context.

Planning Agreement and Application Updates

The group discussed updating the terminology and scope of a long-standing agreement between Neighborhood Councils and the Planning Department. Laura emphasized the need to move away from calling it a “pilot program” and suggested changing it to a “Planning Neighborhood Council Collaborative Agreement” to reflect its institutionalized status. They also addressed issues with the completeness of land use entitlement applications, with Laura highlighting the importance of requiring all necessary documents to be uploaded before deeming an application complete. The discussion touched on the need for better tracking and updating of project files, as well as the involvement of community experts in the review process.

Neighborhood Councils’ Planning Engagement

The meeting focused on challenges and strategies related to neighborhood councils’ engagement with the planning department and broader city processes. Participants discussed the lack of responsiveness from city officials, the need for more strategic outreach, and the importance of community input in planning decisions. They highlighted issues such as the Mills Act program’s proposed changes, the role of neighborhood councils in providing advice, and the need for better communication and training. The group agreed to hold an interim meeting to discuss best practices and potential speakers for future sessions, with a focus on improving their ability to influence city planning decisions.