The Environmentally Sensitive Hillside Area “ESHA” District

CPC 2016-4085-CA CPC-2016-4087-ZC  ENV 2016-4086 EAF

Public Hearing Notice (December 15, 2016)

FAQ (December 15, 2016)

Staff Report  (December 15, 2016)

Draft Ordinance (December 15, 2016)

The City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning will hold a Public Hearing regarding the adoption of a new Supplemental Use District (SUD) and the application of this SUD to the Bel Air neighborhood. The proposed new Environmentally Sensitive Hillside Area (ESHA) District applied to the Bel Air neighborhood is being considered to address community concerns regarding construction impacts of large-scale single- family home developments in the hillsides. The proposed Environmentally Sensitive Hillside Area (ESHA) District will establish development standards regulating grading limits and hauling operation standards to areas that adopt the overlay. The ESHA District regulations will require single-family home development projects 20,000 square feet or larger within the district to go through a review process and will mandate standard hauling operations for all single family home developments as conditions of project approval. Information on both the proposed new Environmentally Sensitive Hillside Area District and the Zone Change Ordinance to apply the ESHA District to the Bel Air neighborhood, will be available for review at the Public Hearing and online at www.planning.lacity.org under “What’s New.”

For questions, please contact project staff:
Christine Saponara, 213.978.1363 or Giselle Corella, 213.978.1357.

Establishing Homeless Shelters During a Crisis / Proposed Ordinance

CF 15-1138-S6 Case No. CPC-2016-11-CA   

  • 12/05/2016 Planning and Land Use Management Committee transmitted Council File to Housing Committee .
  • 11/29/2016 Planning and Land Use Management Committee approved as amended to revise Ordinance to include changes submitted by CD 14 (attached to Council file) and for the City Administrative Officer to report back relative to outreach.   CD 14 Communication (November 29, 2016) City Planning Commission Report (February 12, 2016), Proposed Ordinance (February 12, 2016),
  • 11/23/2016 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on November 29, 2016.  Housing and Community Investment Department Report (March 11, 2016)  Draft Ordinance (March 2, 2016), City Attorney Report (March 2, 2016)
  • 03/11/2016 Housing and Community Investment Department document(s) referred to Homelessness and Poverty Committee; Housing Committee; Planning and Land Use Management Committee.
  • 03/11/2016 Document(s) submitted by Housing and Community Investment Department, as follows: Housing and Community Investment Department Report (March 11, 2016)

Housing and Community Investment Department report, dated March 11, 2016, relative to Ordinances amending Municipal Code sections and adding a section to the Municipal Code to provide for the establishment and operation of temporary homeless shelters during a shelter crisis. Click to view online docs

  • 03/04/2016 City Attorney document(s) referred to Homelessness and Poverty Committee; Housing Committee; Planning and Land Use Management Committee.
  • 03/02/2016 Document(s) submitted by City Attorney, as follows: Draft Ordinance (March 2, 2016), City Attorney Report (March 2, 2016)

City Attorney report R16-0068, dated March 2, 2016, relative to draft ordinances to expand and correct the definition of Shelter for the Homeless and to align the Citys shelter crisis regulations with State Law and adding Section 12.82 to the Municipal Code to provide for the operation and establishment of temporary homeless shelters in any zone during the 2016 El Nino weather cycle.

  • 02/17/2016 Los Angeles City Planning Commission document(s) referred to Homelessness and Poverty Committee; Housing Committee; Planning and Land Use Management Committee.
  • 02/12/2016 Document(s) submitted by Los Angeles City Planning Commission, as follows: City Planning Commission Report (February 12, 2016), Proposed Ordinance (February 12, 2016),

Los Angeles City Planning Commission report, dated February 12, 2016, relative to the proposed Homelessness Emergency Ordinance and amending the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) for the purpose of more quickly establishing homeless shelters during a shelter crisis.

Categorical Exemption and related California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings, reports from the Los Angeles City Planning Commission, the Housing and Community Investment Department and the City Attorney, and draft Ordinance relative to amending Section 12.03 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) to expand the definition of “Shelter for the Homeless” to include more types of facilities and providers and to delete references within that definition to obsolete state code regulations; and amending Sections 12.80 and 12.81 of the LAMC to align the City’s regulations with state law in order to streamline the process for a declaration by the Mayor or City Council of a shelter crisis and allow the swift establishment of temporary homeless shelters on public and private property in response to that declaration. (Also referred to Housing Committee and Homelessness and Poverty Committee)

Applicant: City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning

Fiscal Impact Statement: No

Community Impact Statement: None submitted.

LA Controller Galperin Makes Transparent LA City’s “Underutilized” Properties

PropertyPanel.LA, (Visit Website)
City Controller Ron Galperin recently released PropertyPanel.LA, an interactive, searchable map of the extensive real-estate portfolio owned by the city of Los Angeles. Galperin, who is nationally recognized for his innovative approach to data-driven governance, joined TPR to expound upon the civic value of data transparency and the transformative potential of LA’s “underutilized” real estate.

Amendments to Mobility Plan 2035

CF 15-0719  

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) ADDENDUM, TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REPORT, and RESOLUTIONS relative to proposed amendments to Mobility Plan 2035.

City of Los Angeles Planning Department, EIR No. ENV-2013-0911-EIR (Link to City Planning Website)

Refer to CF 15-0719  for the comprehensive listing for available documents.

  • 12/09/2016 Transportation Committee waived consideration of item. City Attorney Report (October 26, 2016) Draft Ordinance (October 26, 2016)
  • 11/23/2016 Planning and Land Use Management Committee transmitted Council File to Transportation Committee
  • 11/22/2016 Planning and Land Use Management Committee approved item(s)
  • 11/18/2016 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on November 22, 2016.
  • 10/27/2016 City Attorney document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee; Transportation Committee.
  • 10/26/2016 Document(s) submitted by City Attorney, as follows:

City Attorney report R16-0334, dated October 26, 2016, relative to a revised draft ordinance amending Sections of the Municipal Code and repealing previous ordinances establishing street designations for arterial streets and arterial street segments in order to implement modifications to the General Plan’s transportation element.

  • 09/07/2016 Council adopted item, subject to reconsideration, pursuant to Council Rule 51. Vote Action: Adopted
    Vote Given: (10 – 2 – 3)
  • 08/25/2016 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on September 7, 2016 .
  • 08/24/2016 Transportation Committee approved item(s) .
  • 08/24/2016 Planning and Land Use Management Committee waived consideration of item .
  • 07/20/2016 Los Angeles City Planning Commission document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee; Transportation Committee.
  • 07/15/2016 Document(s) submitted by Mayor, as follows:

Los Angeles City Planning Commission reports, both dated July 1, 2016, relative to a General Plan Amendment to adopt the amendments to the Mobility Plan 2035.

  • 05/17/2016 Council Action.
  • 05/15/2016 Community Impact Statement submitted by Westside Neighborhood Council.
  • 05/13/2016 Council adopted Substitute Motion, subject to reconsideration, pursuant to Council Rule 51.
  • 05/11/2016 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on May 13, 2016 .
  • 05/11/2016 Transportation Committee approved as amended .
  • 05/11/2016 Planning and Land Use Management Committee waived consideration of item .
  • 05/06/2016 Transportation Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on May 11, 2016.
  • 03/04/2016 City Clerk transmitted Council File to Planning and Land Use Management Committee
  • 03/04/2016 Los Angeles City Planning Commission document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee; Transportation Committee.
  • 03/03/2016 Document(s) submitted by Mayor, as follows:

Los Angeles City Planning Commission report, dated February 26, 2016, relative to the Mobility Plan 2035 and the City’s 35 Community Plan Amendments related to equity, community input and clarification of existing policies.

  • 01/25/2016 City Attorney document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee; Transportation Committee.
  • 01/22/2016 Document(s) submitted by City Attorney, as follows:
  • City Attorney report R16-0026, dated January 22, 2016, relative to the draft Ordinance amending several sections of the Municipal Code and repealing previous Ordinances establishing street designations for arterial streets and arterial street segments in order to implement modifications to the general plans transportation element.
  • 08/25/2015 Community Impact Statement submitted by Historic Highland Park Neighborhood Council.
  • 08/18/2015 Community Impact Statement submitted by West Los Angeles Neighborhood Council.
  • 08/17/2015 Community Impact Statement submitted by West Los Angeles Neighborhood Council.
  • 08/12/2015 Council Action.
  • 08/11/2015 Council adopted Motion (Bonin – Huizar); For Motions 8A, 8B, 8C, 8D, 8E, 8F, and part of 8G that were referred to the Planning and Land Use Management and Transportation Committees, see Council files 15-0719-S2, -S3, -S4, -S5, -S6, -S7, and -S8.
  • 08/05/2015 Community Impact Statement submitted by Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council.
  • 08/05/2015 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on August 11, 2015 .
  • 08/04/2015 Planning and Land Use Management Committee; Transportation Committee approved as amended .
  • 07/31/2015 Planning and Land Use Management Committee; Transportation Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on August 4, 2015.
  • 07/16/2015 Community Impact Statement submitted by Northridge East Neighborhood Council.
  • 06/25/2015 Community Impact Statement submitted by West Los Angeles Neighborhood Council.
  • 06/22/2015 Community Impact Statement submitted by Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council; Westwood Neighborhood Council.
  • 06/18/2015 Corrected Referral per Council President Office to include Transportation Committee.
  • 06/17/2015 Community Impact Statement submitted by Los Feliz Neighborhood Council.
  • 06/15/2015 Community Impact Statement submitted by Westside Neighborhood Council.
  • 06/10/2015 City Planning document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee.
  • 06/10/2015 Document(s) submitted by City Planning, as follows:

City Planning Department report, dated June 2, 2015, relative to General Plan Amendment for the Mobility Plan 2035.

 

 

 

Development Services System known as BuildLA

CF Nos. 15-0316 and 13-0046    At City Council Adopted, (12); Absent: Buscaino, Ryu (2)

Joint Request to Fund BuildLA Project Year 1

  • 10/31/2016 Mayor transmitted file to City Clerk. Ordinance No 184,548 effective date: December 11, 2016.
  • 10/27/2016 City Clerk transmitted file to Mayor. Last day for Mayor to act is November 7, 2016.
  • 10/25/2016 Council adopted item, subject to reconsideration, pursuant to Council Rule 51.
  • 10/07/2016 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on October 25, 2016  (September 27, 2016)
  • 09/27/2016 Planning and Land Use Management Committee approved item(s)
  • 09/23/2016 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on September 27, 2016
  • 04/05/2016 Planning and Land Use Management Committee continued item to/for undetermined date
  • 04/01/2016 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on April 5, 2016.
  • 02/25/2016 City Administrative Officer document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee   (February 24, 2016)
  • 02/24/2016 Document(s) submitted by City Administrative Officer, as follows:

City Administrative Officer report 0220-04851-0008, dated February 24, 2016, relative to the Development Services Reform Initiative – Construction Services Trust Fund.

  • 02/01/2016 City Attorney document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee.
  • 02/01/2016 City Attorney document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee
  • 02/01/2016 Document(s) submitted by City Attorney, as follows:  City Attorney Letter (February 1, 2016)   Draft Ordinance  (February 1, 2016)

City Attorney report R16-0038, dated February 1, 2016, relative to the draft Ordinance amending the Administrative Code and the Municipal Code; deleting code and adding sections to rename the Construction Services Trust Fund; update trust fund procedures update and establish one-stop permit centers surcharge fee provisions, and temporarily increase the surcharge to fund BuildLA.

  • 04/13/2015 Council Action (April 1, 2015)
  • 04/13/2015 Mayor transmitted Council File to City Clerk
  • 04/02/2015 City Clerk transmitted file to Mayor. Last day for Mayor to act is April 13, 2015
  • 04/01/2015 Council adopted item forthwith
  • 03/25/2015 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on April 1, 2015  (March 25, 2016)
  • 03/24/2015 Planning and Land Use Management Committee approved as amended
  • 03/20/2015 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on March 24, 2015
  • 03/19/2015 City Planning; Department of Building and Safety; Department of Transportation; Fire Department; Public Works: Engineering document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee.
  • 03/19/2015 Document(s) submitted by City Planning; Department of Building and Safety; Department of Transportation; Fire Department; Public Works: Engineering, as follows:  (March 18, 2015)

Department of Building and Safety, et al. report, dated March 18, 2015, relative to a joint request to fund BuildLA project year one.

Categorical Exemption and related California Quality Act findings, reports from the City Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, and an Ordinance relative to amending Section 5.321 of the Los Angeles Administrative Code to rename the Construction Services Trust Fund and update trust fund; amending the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) Sections 11.12, 19.08, 19.09, 61.03, 61.16 and 98.0410; deleting the LAMC Section 68.12; and adding Sections 57.118.4 and 61.17 to the LAMC to rename and update the current “One-Stop Permit Center” surcharge fee provisions, establish the surcharge on fees in the LAMC Section 57.118, and temporarily increase the Development Services System known as BuildLA.

Fiscal Impact Statement: Yes

Community Impact Statement: None submitted.

Stormwater Management Importance Underscored in Los Angeles Basin Study Released by Bureau of Reclamation

Stormwater capture and recharge are critical to replenish and sustain local water supplies within the Los Angeles Area in California

Media Contact: Jack Simes, 951-695-5310,  Peter Soeth, 303-445-3615

Los Angeles Basin Study
Los Angeles Basin Study

WASHINGTON – Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Estevan López has released the Los Angeles Basin Study that looks at the changing demographics, climate change and competing interests for available water supplies and identifies options to meet the water needs of the Los Angeles area into the future. The study found that there is a potential water supply deficit for the region of approximately 160,000 acre-feet-per year by 2035 and 440,000 acre-feet-per-year or 25-percent less water than the region is projected to need in 2095.

“Reclamation and our partners in the Los Angeles area are working to assure a sustainable water supply now and into the future,” Commissioner López said. “The basin study provides our partners the information that they need to further study the various alternatives for future water supplies while reducing their reliance on the state water project and the Colorado River Aqueduct.”

The study compiled and assessed the potential impacts of climate change in the Los Angeles area. These impacts include possible variations in precipitation and changes in the timing and intensity of storms through 2095, temperature increases of 3.5 degrees to 4 degrees Fahrenheit along the coast and 4.5 degrees to 5.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the mountains and desert, an increase in sea-level of 5-24 inches by 2050 and 17-66 inches by 2100, and an increased wildfire risk.

The Los Angeles area relies on imported water from the state water project and the Colorado River for about 57 percent of its current water supply. These imported supplies may be negatively impacted in the future by climate change, drought, and increasing demands. To address this increased uncertainty, the study focused on local water supply sources such as groundwater, which is an important component of the area’s overall water supply portfolio.

The Los Angeles County Flood Control District, a partner in this study with Reclamation, placed a strong emphasis on stormwater capture for groundwater recharge. In addition, recycled water and other local supplies were studied to assist with groundwater recharge. These adaptive concepts were divided among local, regional, storage solutions and management solutions.

The Los Angeles Basin covers approximately 2,040 square miles and features a population of 9.9 million people that is projected to increase to more than 11 million through the next several decades. Nearly 92 percent of Los Angeles County’s population resides within the basin, more than one-fourth of the State of California’s 38.8 million residents.

This basin study was conducted as part of Reclamation’s WaterSMART Program and was cost-shared between Reclamation, Los Angeles County Flood Control District and 20 local project partners. It is available on Reclamation’s Basin Study Program website at http://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/bsp/.

WaterSMART is the Department of the Interior’s sustainable water initiative that uses the best available science to improve water conservation and help water resource managers identify strategies to narrow the gap between supply and demand. For more information on the WaterSMART program, visit www.usbr.gov/WaterSMART.

# # #

Reclamation is the largest wholesale water supplier and the second largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United States, with operations and facilities in the 17 Western States. Its facilities also provide substantial flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. Visit our website at www.usbr.gov and follow us on Twitter @USBR.

Warner Center Mobility Fee Clarification Study / Warner Center 2035 Plan Mobility Fee

CF 13-0197-S4  at City Council   Adopted, (13); Absent: Martinez (1)

CONSIDERATION OF MOTION (BLUMENFIELD – BONIN) relative to the Warner Center 2035 Plan Mobility Fee.

  • 11/04/2016 Council Action.
  • 11/02/2016 Council adopted item, subject to reconsideration, pursuant to Council Rule 51.
  • 10/26/2016 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on November 2, 2016 .
  • 10/18/2016 Planning and Land Use Management Committee waived consideration of item.
  • 10/14/2016 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on October 18, 2016- Meeting Cancelled on October 18, 2016.
  • 06/03/2016 Motion document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee. (June 3, 2016)

Recommendations for Council action:

AUTHORIZE the Department of City Planning (DCP), with the assistance of the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), to expend necessary funds, up to $25,000 from the Warner Center Trust Fund, Fund No. 573/97, Account No. 94M168, from the available cash balance to Account No. 003040, Contractual Services, within the DCP’s General Fund No. 100/68 for the Warner Center Mobility Fee Clarification Study, for a review, public outreach and proposed Specific Plan amendments to the Warner Center 2035 Plan Mobility Fee.

AUTHORIZE the DCP, with the assistance of the LADOT, to engage with the Warner Center Mobility Fee Nexus Study consultants Iteris, subject to the approval of the City Attorney as to form, to perform the following tasks:

a) Review and clarify the Warner Center 2035 Plan Mobility Fee calculation methodology to ensure the proper implementation of the transportation improvements required by the Plan and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR); this methodology needs to hue closely to the intent and purpose of the Plan and EIR, and allow for certainty and clear, concise calculation methods for all users, the public and City departments.

b) Conduct a public outreach component to review the proposed Specific Plan Amendments and Mobility Fee calculation methodology with stakeholders of the Warner Center; the stakeholder outreach shall inform the ultimate Specific Plan amendments sent to the City Council, and include the consultant Iteris.

Community Impact Statement: None submitted.

(Planning and Land Use Management Committee waived consideration of the above matter)

Los Angeles Builds 10 New Multifamily Homes For Every One It Tears Down

The Department of City Planning released a treasure trove of housing-related data earlier this month in the form of the 2015 Growth & Infrastructure Report.

And with relatively little editorializing, I’d like to bring people’s attention to one bit in particular. Below is a table from the report comparing unit counts for new units, and demolished ones, between 2010 and 2015. I assume that most single family dwelling units (SFDUs) are torn down only to be replaced by larger single-family homes, so I recommend focusing your attention on the multifamily (MFDU) unit data (new, demolished, and net):

Overall, we demolished a little over 3,500 multifamily units over the 5-year study period. During that time, we built just over 35 thousand new ones: almost exactly a 10-to-1 replacement ratio. 

The ratios vary pretty dramatically between Community Plan Areas: in Wilshire, about 5 new MFDUs were built for every 1 torn down; in Hollywood, it was a little under 10 to 1; in Central City (downtown), the ratio was an astounding 200 to 1. Lots of parking lots bit the dust, but the housing that was there was pretty much all preserved.

If we’re looking to hand out awards, Canoga Park and its environs take the prize with a 1,420:1 ratio of construction to demolition, though. But Chatsworth and Harbor Gateway deserve credit too: both of them break the universe with 1,194 and 178 new homes, respectively, and zero multifamily units lost. (Never divide by zero, people.)

For me, this is pretty good news overall. The new housing that we’re building, insufficient though it may be, is coming at the expense of relatively little existing stock. But we can do better.

For one, we can build more housing where none currently exists, like on parking lots and commercial strips. If we repeal Proposition U we’ll end up with a lot higher construction-to-demolition ratio, and much less displacement—and less development pressure on single-family and low-density neighborhoods.

If we eliminate the “Parking (P, PB)” designation in our zoning code (yes, we literally have places in our city where nothing but parking is allowed to be built), that would help too. While we’re at it, we should eliminate parking minimums entirely, since they just force developers to build more parking at the expense of housing. We currently have more square footage devoted to car storage than to human shelter, so even more space for cars really should not be a priority.

We should also upzone more of our transit-oriented neighborhoods, so that the most transit-accessible communities are able to build more housing for every unit replaced. We can have one household displaced for every 10 households, or one for every 50, and that’s almost entirely determined by zoning. If it’s one for every 50, it becomes a hell of a lot easier to force deveopers (or property owners, or the city, or whoever), to re-house any displaced families and provide more affordable housing in their new project.

And we should definitely improve our density bonus, making sure that every time a new building goes up, it’s maximizing both its market-rate and affordable housing component. With historically low vacancy rates in the LA County region, we can’t afford to scrimp on either.

Ten-to-one is good—great, even. But we can do better. And we know what it takes to get there. So, you know… let’s.

Bicycle Parking in New and Enlarged Buildings

CPC-2016-4216-CA, ENV-2011-310-ND     Public Hearing November 17, 2016 (Notice, FAQ and Draft Ordinance)

 

PROPOSED PROJECT: An ordinance amending Sections 12.03, 12.21 and 12.26 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) to improve and refine the bicycle parking regulations.

This notice is to inform you of a public hearing for case number CPC-2016-4216-CA, a proposed Zoning Code amendment to modify the City of Los Angeles’ regulations concerning the provision of bicycle parking in new and enlarged buildings. All interested persons are invited to attend the public hearing, at which you may listen, speak, and submit written information relating to the proposed amendment.

NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION ORDINANCE – Interim Control Ordinance Nos. 183,497 and 184,381

CPC-2016-2112-ZC, CPC-2016-2115-ZC ( CPC Hearing 10/13/2015 Audio)

  • Staff Recommendation to City Planning Commission Part 1 (October 13, 2016)  (First 8 communities)
  • Staff Recommendation to City Planning Commission Part 2 (November 10, 2016) (Following 7 communities)
  • Background Flyer
  • Single Family Zone Non-Hillside Summary Chart

Council District: 5 – Koretz
CEQA: ENV-2016-2111-ND Expiration Date: N/A
Plan Area: Wilshire Appeal Status: N/A

PUBLIC HEARINGS – Completed on August 29, 2016, August 30, 2016, August 31, 2016,
September 13, 2016 and September 20, 2016

Location: The area consists of several communities throughout the City identified in the proposed Ordinances by the following neighborhood names: Faircrest Heights, Wilshire Vista, Picfair Village, Crestview, South Hollywood, La Brea Hancock, Larchmont Heights, The Oaks of Los Feliz, Pacific Palisades, Mar Vista/East Venice, Kentwood, Beverlywood, Lower Council District 5, Inner Council District 5 and Fairfax. The first eight communities will be presented to City Planning Commission on October 13, 2016 while the following seven communities will be presented to City Planning Commission on November 10, 2016.

Proposed Project:
As follow-up to Interim Control Ordinance number 183,497 and 184,381, the proposed zone change
ordinance will provide more specialized development regulation for single-family dwelling units within the project boundaries identified in the attached proposal utilizing the new “R1- One-Family Variation Zones” proposed for the Los Angeles Municipal Code via a separate Code Amendment, case number CPC- 2016-2110-CA. The new zones represent context sensitive zoning meant to preserve the neighborhood character of the individual communities.

Requested Actions:
1. Pursuant to Section 12.32(F) of the Los Angeles Municipal Code approve a recommendation that
Council will adopt, a Zone Change to those parcels lying within the Faircrest Heights proposed
Ordinance Maps from R1-1 to R1R2-RG, R1V2 and R1V2-RG.
2. Pursuant to Section 12.32(F) of the Los Angeles Municipal Code approve a recommendation that
Council will adopt, a Zone Change to those parcels lying within the Picfair Village proposed
Ordinance Maps from R1-1 to R1R2-RG.
3. Pursuant to Section 12.32(F) of the Los Angeles Municipal Code approve a recommendation that
Council will adopt, a Zone Change to those parcels lying within the Wilshire Vista proposed
Ordinance Maps from R1-1 to R1R2-RG.
4. Pursuant to Section 12.32(F) of the Los Angeles Municipal Code approve a recommendation that
Council will adopt, a Zone Change to those parcels lying within the Crestview proposed Ordinance
Maps from R1-1 to R1R2-RG.
5. Pursuant to Section 12.32(F) of the Los Angeles Municipal Code approve a recommendation that
Council will adopt, a Zone Change to those parcels lying within the South Hollywood proposed
Ordinance Maps from R1-1 to R1R2-RG.
6. Pursuant to Section 12.32(F) of the Los Angeles Municipal Code approve a recommendation that
Council will adopt, a Zone Change to those parcels lying within the La Brea Hancock, proposed
Ordinance Maps from R1-1 to R1R2-RG.
7. Pursuant to Section 12.32(F) of the Los Angeles Municipal Code approve a recommendation that
Council will adopt, a Zone Change to those parcels lying within the Larchmont Heights proposed
Ordinance Maps from R1-1 to R1R2-RG.
8. Pursuant to Section 12.32(F) of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, approve a recommendation that
Council will adopt, a Height District Change / Zone Change to those parcels lying within the
proposed Oaks of Los Feliz Ordinance Map from R1-1, RE 9-1, R1-1D, RE 9-1D, RE11-1D, RE15-
1D to R1-1D, RE9-1D, RE11-1D and RE15-1D with a modifications to Lot Coverage and FAR in the
Existing Development “D” Limitation.
9. Pursuant to Section 21082.1(c)(3) of the California Resources Code, the adoption of Negative
Declaration No. ENV-2016-2111-ND.
Recommended Actions:
1. Approve and recommend that the City Council adopt the Zone Change Ordinance establishing a
Zone Change to those parcels lying within the Faircrest Heights proposed Ordinance Maps from
R1-1 to R1R2-RG, R1V2 and R1V2-RG.
2. Approve and recommend that the City Council adopt the Zone Change Ordinance establishing a
Zone Change to those parcels lying within the Picfair Village proposed Ordinance Maps from R1-1
to R1R2-RG.
3. Approve and recommend that the City Council adopt the Zone Change Ordinance establishing a
Zone Change to those parcels lying within the Wilshire Vista proposed Ordinance Maps from R1-1
to R1R2-RG.
4. Approve and recommend that the City Council adopt the Zone Change Ordinance establishing a
Zone Change to those parcels lying within the Crestview proposed Ordinance Maps from R1-1 to
R1R2-RG.
5. Approve and recommend that the City Council adopt the Zone Change Ordinance establishing a
Zone Change to those parcels lying within the South Hollywood proposed Ordinance Maps from
R1-1 to R1R2-RG.
6. Approve and recommend that the City Council adopt the Zone Change Ordinance establishing a
Zone Change to those parcels lying within the La Brea Hancock, proposed Ordinance Maps from
R1-1 to R1R2-RG.
7. Approve and recommend that the City Council adopt the Zone Change Ordinance a Zone Change
to those parcels lying within the Larchmont Heights proposed Ordinance Maps from R1-1 to R1R2-
RG.

8. Approve and recommend that the City Council adopt the Zone Change Ordinance establishing a
Height District Change to those parcels lying within the proposed Oaks of Los Feliz Ordinance Map
from R1-1, RE 9-1, R1-1D, RE 9-1D, RE11-1D, RE15-1D to R1-1D, RE9-1D, RE11-1D and RE15-
1D, with a modifications to Lot Coverage and FAR in the Existing Development “D” Limitation.
9. Approve and recommend that the City Council adopt Negative Declaration No. ENV–2016–2111–
ND.
10. Adopt the Findings.
Staff: Christine Saponara (213) 978-1363

LOS ANGELES CITY INITIATIVE ORDINANCE JJJ AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND LABOR STANDARDS RELATED TO CITY PLANNING

League of Women Voters, Los Angeles

Citizen-Sponsored Initiative, A majority vote is required for passage

To provide safe, clean affordable housing for the homeless and for those in danger of becoming homeless, such as battered women and their children, veterans, seniors, foster youth, and the disabled; and provide facilities to increase access to mental health care, drug and alcohol treatment, and other services; shall the City of Los Angeles issue $1,200,000,000 in general obligation bonds, with citizen oversight and annual financial audits?
Ordinance JJJ Votes Percent
Yes 909,486 77.12%
No 269,814 22.88%

1,700 of 1,700 precincts reporting (100.00%) | 2/3 of votes cast

The Question: Should the city’s ability to deny or amend certain General Plan or zoning changes be limited for residential projects of ten or more units if they provide affordable housing, comply with prevailing wage, local hiring and other labor standards, and meet other requirements?

The Situation: The City’s General Plan guides development throughout the city. California law requires that all cities and counties prepare a general plan that includes such elements as land use, open space, housing, seismic safety and public safety. Amending the General Plan involves the Planning Commission, Director of Planning, the mayor and the council. Public hearings must be held, and the mayor and council must have the opportunity to be heard. If both the mayor and the commission approve an amendment, the council may adopt it by majority vote. If the mayor and/or the
commission do not approve, the council would need a greater-than-majority vote to adopt the amendment. The council is responsible for establishing rules for granting changes to the General Plan.

The Proposal: Measure JJJ provides that nothing in the regular amendment procedure could restrict the adoption of a General Plan amendment that permits the development of a residential project of ten or more units if the project meets all of the following:

•The project is located near transit stops or other geographic requirements, or is
entirely comprised of affordable housing units.
•The project meets training, local hiring and certain wage requirements.
•The project provides a certain percentage of affordable housing and/or complies with
specified affordable housing requirements.
•Labor-related standards including a good-faith effort that at least 30 percent of all
construction worker hours be performed by permanent residents of the city, and at least
10 percent be performed by “Transitional Workers” who live in an economically
disadvantaged area within a five-mile radius of the project site, and are otherwise
disadvantaged in one of several ways, including being homeless or lacking a GED or
high school diploma.

This measure also would limit the city’s ability to reduce the number of community plans or make changes to their geographical boundaries, land uses, or other material changes without the Planning Department and Planning Commission reviewing these changes and their impact on the creation and preservation of affordable housing. With the exception of affordable housing developments of 25 units or less, housing projects receiving funds from the city’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund would be
required to meet prevailing wage requirements, and there would be an affordable housing incentive program with increased density and reduced parking requirements for projects within a one-half mile radius around a major transit stop.

Financial Impact: This measure is not expected to result in any additional cost to the city or to taxpayers.

Supporters say:

This measure ensures that developers who ask the city for special planning or zoning changes will have to follow strict requirements for affordability, and that 30 percent of the jobs building affordable housing will go to people in Los Angeles who need the jobs most. It will produce more affordable housing without relying on taxpayer funding.

Opponents say:
This measure is deeply flawed, does not produce new jobs and will not increase the availability or affordability of housing. This is the wrong approach, because it will drive up rental costs, make homes more unaffordable for first-time buyers, add delays and red tape to the construction of needed housing, and increase construction costs.

Signers of Arguments in Favor: Alton Wilkerson, Electrician; Rusty Hicks, Veteran; Ronald Miller, Plumber; Angella Gains, Renter; Josefina Castillo, First-time home buyer.

Signers of Arguments Against: Tim Plasky, Coalition for Jobs and Attainable Housing; Beverly A. Kenworthy, California Apartment Association; Carol Schatz, Central City Association, Gary Toebben, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce; Stuart Waldman, Valley Industry & Commerce Association; Mike Balsam, Building Industry Association of Southern California.

A YES Vote means:: You want to limit the city’s ability to deny or amend General Plan
amendments for certain residential projects of ten or more units that provide affordable
housing and meet training, local hiring, prevailing wage and other requirements.

A NO Vote means: You do not want to limit the city in this way.

LOS ANGELES CITY PROPOSITION HHH HOMELESSNESS REDUCTION AND PREVENTION, HOUSING AND FACILITIES BOND

League of Women Voters, Los Angeles

Placed on the ballot by vote of the Los Angeles City Council
A 2/3 vote is required for passage

To provide safe, clean affordable housing for the homeless and for those in danger of becoming homeless, such as battered women and their children, veterans, seniors, foster youth, and the disabled; and provide facilities to increase access to mental health care, drug and alcohol treatment, and other services; shall the City of Los Angeles issue $1,200,000,000 in general obligation bonds, with citizen oversight and annual financial audits?
Proposition HHH Votes Percent
Yes 909,486 77.12%
No 269,814 22.88%
1,700 of 1,700 precincts reporting (100.00%) | 2/3 of votes cast

The Question: Should the city issue $1.2 billion in bonds to provide safe, clean
affordable housing for the homeless and those in danger of being homeless, and
provide facilities to increase access to mental health care, drug and alcohol treatment
and other services?

Bonds: Bonds are a way of borrowing a large sum of money and paying it back with
interest over a number of years. School districts, cities and the state use bonds to raise
money to pay for expensive building projects.
The Situation: According to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA),
there are approximately 26,000 homeless individuals in Los Angeles, a growth of 11%
in the past year. Homelessness and homeless encampments have increased citywide
and are a safety and public health issue. In February, 2016, the city adopted the
“Comprehensive Homeless Strategy” that determined that 13,000 units of new housing,
including 10,000 units of supportive housing, are needed to house the homeless, at an
estimated cost exceeding $1 billion. The city’s strategy, in accordance with the position
of the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and LAHSA, is that
providing stable housing to homeless individuals as a first step is more effective than
providing services without guaranteed housing.

The Proposal: Proposition HHH would authorize the city to issue general obligation
bonds in the amount of $1.2 billion to develop housing and facilities for the homeless
and affordable housing for those at risk of homelessness, including temporary shelters ,
showers, storage facilities and facilities to be used to provide supportive services. Bond
proceeds may not be used to finance services or operations, or to replace any existing
sources of funds dedicated to developing similar housing and facilities.

An annual plan to prioritize funding would be required, as well as the establishment of
Citizens Oversight and Administrative Oversight Commissions to monitor the bond
program, and annual financial audits which would be available to the public.
Financial Impact: Principal and interest on the bonds will be paid from additional
property taxes to be levied on taxable property in the city according to its assessed
value. Over the life of the bonds, the estimated annual tax rate would be $9.64 per
$100,000 of assessed value. For the owner of a home assessed at $341,000, the
estimated average tax would be $32.87 for 29 years.

The best estimate of the total debt service that would have to be repaid if all the bonds
were issued, including the principal ($1.2 billion) and interest ($693 million) is
$1,893,000,000.

Once all the bonds are issued and all bond proceeds spent, there would be additional
costs to administer the program, estimated at $1.6 million each year.

Supporters say:

Proposition HHH is a common-sense, cost-effective approach to solving the problem of
growing homelessness, increasing encampments and at-risk populations of homeless
women and children, seniors and veterans. It will provide the resources we need to
reduce the number of people living on our streets, build more supportive housing, and
facilitate access to necessary services.

Opponents Say:

Proposition HHH is an unnecessary and unfair tax that would not be levied equally on
all property owners. Recent homeowners would pay much more, while renters, even
wealthy ones, would pay nothing. The bonds can only be used for land and buildings
and not for operating homeless shelters, mental health or substance abuse treatment or
extra policing.

Signers of Arguments in Favor::

Elise Buck, United Way of Greater Los Angeles; Gary Toebben, Los Angeles Area
Chamber of Commerce; Michael Alvidrez, Skid Row Housing Trust; Antonia Hernandez,
California Community Foundation; Dr. Mitchell Katz, MD, Los Angeles County
Department of Health Services; Rusty Hicks, Los Angeles County Federation of Labor;
Richard Close, Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association; Faye Washington, YWCA of
Greater Los Angeles; Hon. Zev Yaroslavsky, Supervisor 3rd District (ret.);Charles E.
Blake, Sr., West Angeles Church of God in Christ.

Signers of Arguments Against::

G. Rick Marshall, California Taxpayers Action Network; Jack Humpreville,
Neighborhood Council Budget Advocate; Mark Ryavec, former Chief Deputy Assessor;
Jay Handal, Citywide Budget Advocates; Gary Aminoff, Alliance for Liberty; Denny
Schneider, Community Activist.

A YES Vote means: You want to authorize $1.2 billion in general obligation bonds to
pay for affordable housing and facilities for the homeless and those at risk of becoming
homeless.

A NO Vote means: You do not want to authorize these bonds.

Establish variations of the R1 Zone and an “RG” Rear Detached Garage Supplemental Use District

CPC-2016-2110-CA  At City PLanning Commission Nov. 10th

Council Districts: All
CEQA: ENV-2016-2111-ND Last Day to Act: N/A
Plan Areas: All Continued from 10-13-16

PUBLIC HEARING – Completed on August 25, 2016

PROJECT SITE: Citywide

PROPOSED ORDINANCE: An Ordinance amending Sections 12.04, 12.08, 12.21, 12.21.1, 12.23, 12.32 S, and 13.18, and adding Sections 12.21.6 and Section 13.19 to the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) to establish variations of the R1 Zone and an “RG” Rear Detached Garage Supplemental Use District that may be applied to regulate garage placement in the RA, RE, RS, and R1 Zones.
REQUESTED ACTIONS:
1. FIND, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(b), after consideration of the whole of the
administrative record, including the Negative Declaration, No. ENV-2016-2011-ND
(“Negative Declaration”), and all comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect on the environment; FIND the Negative Declaration
reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City; and ADOPT Negative
Declaration.
2. Adopt the staff report as its report on the subject.
3. Recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance.
4. Recommend that the City Council adopt the Findings.
Applicant: City of Los Angeles

Staff: Phyllis Nathanson, City Planner
(213) 978-1474

phyllis.nathanson@lacity.org

Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) units

CF 16-0767  at PLUM Nov. 8th 

Impact of Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) Inventory

  • 11/04/2016 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on November 8, 2016.
  • 08/05/2016 Community Impact Statement submitted by Glassell Park Neighborhood Council.
  • 06/28/2016 Motion document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee. (Motion)

Motion (Huizar – O’Farrell) relative to the Department of City Planning to include a statement in its departmental reports each time a project is considered by the Planning and Land Use Management Committee, which removes Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) units, and which delineates how it impacts the City’s RSO inventory.

Fiscal Impact Statement: No

Community Impact Statement: Yes
For: Glassell Park Neighborhood Council

Motion Notes:  “The Planning Department must ensure that all requirements have been met wherein there is a proposed land use project that removes existing affordable housing units from the rental market, inasmuch as the City is the most unaffordable housing market in the country, and where there are nearly 28,000 homeless people in the City, bringing the total to 47,000 homeless individuals in the County of Los Angeles.”

2015 GROWTH & INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT

2015 GROWTH & INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT (November 1, 2016)

 

The Department of City Planning is pleased to present the 2015 Report on Growth and Infrastructure. It is the latest in a series of reports providing detailed information on
City demographics, development activity, infrastructure and public facilities.
The report is a program of the Framework Element of the General Plan. Its aim is to
synthesize information about the City’s growth and infrastructure in one place. The first
half of the report focuses on population, housing and employment growth since the 2010
Census. Information is organized around the City’s 35 Community Plan Areas,  2 Special Purpose Districts (the port and airport) and 7 Area Planning Commission areas. The second half focuses on the range of available and planned/completed infrastructure facilities to support that growth.
The report largely summarizes existing public reports, plans and other publications from the State, regional and other local agencies. It will be made available as an interactive resource on the Internet.
It is our hope that this and future reports become useful tools in understanding growth and change in the City. The reports provide an important window into understanding changing needs, demographics and infrastructure, thereby informing public debate on these topics.
The Department of City Planning is committed to providing this information to you and the public, and to assisting public policy and decision-making.