In the News: 2018 Was the Year of the YIMBY

A milestone upzoning plan in Minneapolis capped a year that saw pro-housing forces duel NIMBYs in cities nationwide.

A few weeks ago, Minneapolis made zoning history when its city council endorsed a comprehensive plan that would enable denser housing development across the city. Elements of the Minneapolis 2040 plan still need to be passed into law, so it falls short of an outright ban on single-family housing, as both supporters and critics have described it. But it’s still the most progressive legislative push by any city yet to face up to the affordable housing crisis, and it’s turning heads in Philadelphia, Dallas, Seattle, and other cities.“Such an ambitious, large-scale overhaul of zoning rules is practically unheard of in U.S. cities, where single-family neighborhoods with their rows of houses set behind landscaped front yards have typically been off the table during discussions of citywide ‘Smart Growth’ and affordable housing,” reads the Los Angeles Times editorial board’s green-with-envy endorsement.

Other facets of the plan are drawing critical acclaim, too. The policy eliminates off-street minimum parking requirements, making Minneapolis the fourth city to make such a move. (San Francisco pulled the trigger earlier in December, while both Buffalo in New York and Hartford in Connecticut did so in 2017.) Reason hailed Minneapolis 2040 as a victory for free-market deregulation (even as it pooh-poohed an inclusionary zoning ordinance that encouraged developers to set aside units for low-income families).

By its end, 2018 turned out to be the year of the YIMBY. Not only did Minneapolis prove that a major American city could pass pro-housing zoning reforms beloved by Yes-In-My-Backyard types, it could pass them all at once, and without forcing the mayor to flee by cover of night. Indeed, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey is taking a victory lap on the strength of a truly comprehensive plan—with features that address climate change and structural racism—although it might have cost him the support of some wealthy homeowners. But even this political liability is distributed, as all but one city council member joined together to pass the scheme.
Could this be the blueprint for a housing wave—a strategy that unites social justice warriors, type-A transit maximalists, and Howard Roark–ian libertarians? After the success of Minneapolis 2040, the better question might be, how could it not?Oregon hopes to be the first state in the nation to test that assumption. As Willamette Week reports, State House Speaker Tina Kotek, the representative from Portland, is drafting a bill to end single-family zoning in any Oregon city with a population of 10,000 or more. The legislation would effectively upzone 47 different cities, from tiny Monmouth in Polk County to Eugene, Salem, and Portland. For years, liberal Portland has been unable to muster support for a policy that would enable fourplex housing developments anywhere in the city; if it’s that difficult to pass zoning reforms in one of the most progressive cities in the nation, it’s only going to be trickier when conservative Eastern Oregon has its say.

Steep odds for state-level upzoning are also the rule in California, where Scott Wiener, housing champion and state senator, has introduced legislation to repeal a constitutional amendment that restricts low-income housing, as well as another bill to boost denser development near transit. For the latter piece, this is Wiener’s second bite at the apple, after the similar State Bill 827 went down in flames in April. No, 2018 wasn’t an unambiguous victory for housing advocates.

State government likely presents more challenges than opportunities for zoning reform. Texas, for example, passed a bill in 2015 that preempts any municipality from enacting local protections for Section 8 voucher holders. Landlords who discriminate against renters with housing aid drive segregation patterns today. If Atlanta succeeds in passing reforms to promote granny flats, curb minimum parking requirements, and legalize new apartment buildings (all changes endorsed by the city’s zoning board), there’s always the threat that the Georgia state legislature will interfere, as it has done or threatened to do with local laws regulating tobacco, Airbnb, the minimum wage, and more.

Sweeping bans on single-family zoning are unlikely anywhere. Even in Minneapolis, where threeplex housing will be allowed on single-family plots, the new dispensation does not grant room for buildings that are much larger in scale. Earlier this year, U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson pitched a rules change as a strategy for combating NIMBYism. (But this is conservative slight-of-hand: Instead of tying federal housing funds to affirmative efforts to desegregate, Carson would pin them to deregulation.)Two years out from the next election, affordable housing is already a subject of national debate. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, a possible presidential hopeful in 2020, introduced a comprehensive bill called the American Housing and Economic Mobility Act. Not to be outdone, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, another 2020 contender, put out a Housing, Opportunity, Mobility, and Equity Act. Respectively, these bills represent the carrot and the stick, as far as as federal approaches to housing go. Neither will get a moment’s consideration from the Republican-controlled Senate, but they signal that fair housing could be an issue in the 2020 election—at least in the Democratic Party primary.

Maybe the most important turn in 2018 was not how this city looked to expand its supply of accessory dwelling units (like in Seattle) or how that city realized that single-family zoning is choking its growth (also Seattle). Housing advocates suffered setbacks this year, after all, in places such as Reno and Boulder. And new housing starts are still dismal compared to pre-recession highs. Now, the recovery may be grinding to a halt.
New housing starts have sputtered over the recovery, compared to pre-recession levels. (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis)

Instead, local leaders hit on successful ways for overcoming the value-action gap—a wonky term for the phenomenon seen when homeowners in progressive neighborhoods post yard signs welcoming all peoples even as they oppose nearby housing developments. Going forward, there are proven tactics for bridging the value-action gap and solving for the ABCs of social change—attitude, behavior, and choice. Minneapolis finally got the damned thing done, and others will follow.

Finally, 2018 marked the Year of Our Lord when NIMBYism went from a seemingly unstoppable force to a figure of mockery. End your year with one Minneapolitan’s delightful zoning parody: “I Was Radicalized by Minneapolis 2040.”

“As I drove from 50th to Lake Street I was subjected to the type of pure urban obscenity that occurs when single family houses mix with apartment buildings. There were duplexes, triplexes, plexplexes,” writes Kristopher Kapphahn, a Twin Cities biostatistician. “They were all just nestled right in among innocent single-family homes. And it was awful. Anyone who has taken Bryant through South Minneapolis knows what I now newly knew: it’s the very definition of urban hellscape.”

About the Author

Kriston Capps
  • Kriston Capps is a staff writer for CityLab covering housing, architecture, and politics. He previously worked as a senior editor for Architect magazine.

CF 14-0409-S6   Adopted, (15)

PERSONNEL AND ANIMAL WELFARE COMMITTEE REPORT and ORDINANCES FIRST CONSIDERATION, relative to technical changes to the Los Angeles Administrative Code (LAAC), amending Ordinance No. 184251.

Recommendations for Council action, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MAYOR:

PRESENT and ADOPT the accompanying ORDINANCES dated January 12, 2018 and January 22, 2018 respectively, amending the classification listing in Schedule A of the LAAC Section 4.61 to provide the following technical changes:
a. Add the classification of Airport Police Specialist (Code No. 3236).

b. Revise the salary ranges of the non-represented classification of Police Training Administrator (Code No. 2383) and PRIMA Program Manager (Code No. 1854).

PRESENT and ADOPT the accompanying ORDINANCE dated January 22, 2018, adding a new category of salary notes applicable to the Zoo Department in the LAAC Section 4.61 with a new salary note providing additional compensation for an employee in the non-represented classification of Animal Collection Curator (Code No. 4308) when designated by Management as a member or captain of the Los Angeles Zoo Emergency Firearms Team.
AUTHORIZE the Controller and the City Administrative Officer (CAO) to correct any clerical errors, or, if approved by the City Attorney, any technical errors in the above Ordinances.

Fiscal Impact Statement: The CAO reports that any increase in costs resulting from implementation of the attached Ordinances will be absorbed within budgeted funds by the employing City departments.

Community Impact Statement: None submitted.

Code Amendment / Accessory Dwelling Units / Proposed Ordinance

City Planning Commission  01/03/2019

CF 16-1468

Case No. CPC-2016-4345-CA

Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378(a), 15061(b)(3), 15301, 15302 and 15303; and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(b) and related CEQA findings, report from the Los Angeles City Planning Commission relative to a proposed Ordinance amending Sections 12.03 and 12.22 and repealing portions of Section 12.24 of Chapter 1 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code for the purpose of regulating Accessory Dwelling Units and complying with State law; and report from the Department of City Planning responding to the Committee’s request made at the meeting on March 31, 2017, and presentation of draft Ordinance that incorporates recent changes to State law.

Applicant: City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning

Environmental No. ENV-2016-4346-CE

Fiscal Impact Statement: No.

Community Impact Statement: Yes.

 

Update the Citywide Design Guidelines

In line with the Department’s and the Mayor’s goals to streamline the development review process and elevate the design quality of our City’s public realm, the Urban Design Studio is seeking to update the Citywide Design Guidelines so design quality will become a core value of the City’s built environment. The updated Citywide Design Guidelines will draw on and go beyond the principles of local policies, community plans and the re:codeLA , by addressing the ways that architectural, landscape and urban design can meet people’s varying needs. Through the conscientious integration of design strategies into projects of all scales, design professionals can realize buildings and neighborhoods that seamlessly integrate more healthy and pedestrian- friendly living with attention to design excellence and climate adaptation.

STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR CPC:
No Action Required: Status Update and Presentation
Staff:  Claire Bowin, Senior City Planner
claire.bowin@lacity.org
(213) 847-3710
Danai Zaire, City Planning Associate
danai.zaire@lacity.org
(213) 847-3709

 

20 unexpired CRA Project Areas

CPC-2018-6005-CA  Council Districts: Multiple
CEQA: ENV-2018-6006-CE Last Day to Act: 03-20-19
Plan Areas: Multiple

PUBLIC HEARING – Completed November 14, 2018

PROJECT SITE: The project location consists of the 20 unexpired Redevelopment Project Areas located throughout the City. The 20 unexpired Redevelopment Project Areas are: East Hollywood/Beverly-Normandie; North Hollywood; Chinatown; Broadway/Manchester; Wilshire/Koreatown; Crenshaw; Crenshaw/Slauson; Watts Corridor; Council District 9; Hollywood; Mid-City; Western Slauson; Vermont/Manchester; Laurel Canyon; Westlake; Exposition/University Park; Adelante Eastside; Pacific Corridor; City Center; and Central Industrial.

PROPOSED PROJECT: Actions related to the transfer of land use authority from the Community Redevelopment Agency, Designated Local Authority (CRA/LA-DLA) to the City of Los Angeles, including a Resolution to transfer the land use authority and an Ordinance establishing procedures implementing the Redevelopment Plans and other amendments to the Los Angeles Municipal Code to facilitate the transfer of land use authority.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
1. Approve and recommend that the City Council determine, based on the whole of the
administrative record, that the proposed resolution and ordinance is not a project under
CEQA pursuant to Section 15378(b)(5) of the California Public Resources Code and that
the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15308 and 15320,
and there is no substantial evidence demonstrating that an exception to a categorical
exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15300.2 applies;
2. Approve and recommend that the City Council adopt the Resolution transferring the land
use authority from the CRA/LA-DLA to the City of Los Angeles;
3. Approve and recommend that the City Council adopt the Ordinance establishing procedures
implementing the Redevelopment Plans and other amendments to the Los Angeles
Municipal Code to facilitate the transfer of land use authority from CRA/LA-DLA;
4. Adopt the staff report as the Commission’s report on the subject; and
5. Approve and recommend that the City Council adopt the findings.

Applicant: City of Los Angeles
Staff: Giselle Corella, City Planning Associate
giselle.corella@lacity.org
(213) 978-1357
Susan Wong, City Planning Associate
susan.s.wong@lacity.org
(213) 978-1472

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Annual CEQA Document Filing Fee Increase

Effective Jan. 1, filing fees imposed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife will increase for all CEQA Notices of Determination. The CDFW is required to adjust the fees annually. The fees are used to defray the agency’s costs related to, among other things, consulting with public agencies, reviewing environmental documents, making mitigation recommendations and developing monitoring programs, according to the agency’s website.

The cost increases for NOD filed on or after Jan. 1 are as follows:

DFW Fee Schedule

CEQA Document Fees Effective
Jan. 1, 2018
Fees Effective
Jan. 1, 2019
Negative Declaration $2,280.75 $2,354.75
Mitigated Negative Declaration $2,280.75 $2,354.75
Environmental Impact Report $3,168 $3,271
Environmental Document pursuant to a Certified Regulatory Program* $1,077 $1,112
Notice of Exemption for a Statutory or Categorical Exempt Action No DFW Fee No DFW Fee
County Clerk Processing Fee** $50 $50

*Including, but not limited to, timber harvesting plans and other state agency regulatory programs. (Public Resources Code, § 21080.5; State CEQA Guidelines, § 15251)

**Additional county fees may apply. Please check with the county clerk’s office for the current amount of the county’s processing fee. This fee is due for all filings, including a Notice of Exemption.

As was the case in 2018, no DFW fee will be assessed for the filing of Notices of Exemption in 2019. Please note, however, that a local clerk’s processing fee may be charged for the filing of any NOD or NOE, depending on local county policy.
The DFW fee may be charged only once per project. In the event that a project requires the filing of multiple NODs by lead or responsible agencies, the DFW fee is required at the time the lead agency files the first NOD. If a copy of the DFW fee receipt for the filing of the first NOD can be provided as proof of payment, subsequent NODs for the same project will not need to pay any additional DFW fees.

Instructions for County Clerks

The Macro View on Micro Units

Contributor, David Honda

Click on the BLUE highlight to view official documents and reports.

Read MicroUit Report regarding a funded study by Urban Land Institute which as has taken 3 years to understand by the development community.  WeWork has started to implement in New York and as Germany is now building for “Co-Living”. WeWork has changed the office leasing and now looking to change urban millennial living.

 

Downtown Community Plans (DTLA 2040)

Click on the BLUE highlight to view official documents and reports.

Purpose

The ambition of the Downtown Community Plan is to create and implement a vision of the future for Downtown Los Angeles. Downtown is the birthplace of Los Angeles and the primary center of urban activity in the region. It remains the City’s commercial, entertainment, cultural, and civic heart. Now enjoying a renaissance, Downtown is home to a diverse range of industries and a patchwork of distinct neighborhoods that sit at the center of an expanding regional transportation network. According to regional projections, by the year 2040, Downtown will be adding approximately:

+ 125,000 people

+ 70,000 housing units

+ 55,000 jobs

The Plan will strive to support and sustain the ongoing revitalization of Downtown, while thoughtfully accommodating this projected future growth.
A strong core is important to the health of the City.

The Plan will promote a dynamic, healthy and sustainable Downtown core that is tightly connected to its surroundings and supports the City of Los Angeles and the region.

The following core principles represent the long-term priorities for the Downtown Community Plan:

  • Accommodate anticipated growth through 2040 in an inclusive, equitable, sustainable, and healthy manner, while supporting and sustaining Downtown’s ongoing revitalization
  • Reinforce Downtown’s jobs orientation
  • Grow and support the residential base
  • Strengthen neighborhood character
  • Promote a transit-, bicycle-, and pedestrian-friendly environment
  • Create linkages between districts
  • Create a world-class streets and public realm

Virtual Public Hearing
Event Date(s)
December 8, 2020

The Public Hearing is a formal opportunity to provide public comment on the Draft Plan to a Hearing Officer. Those who do not attend the Public Hearing may submit comments by email or hard copy through December 18, 2020, at 5 p.m. The purpose of the Public Hearing is to collect comments on the Draft Plan. No presentation will be provided and no decisions will be made at the time of the Public Hearing.

Participants may join the Public Hearing online or by phone at anytime between 4 and 7 p.m. to offer testimony. In order that all viewpoints may be presented, speakers at the Public Hearing may be limited in the length of their testimony.

Click here to join the Zoom meeting. To join by phone, dial (213) 338-8477. The meeting ID is 890 1507 3209, and the password is 497626.

Click here to view the Public Hearing notice.

 

Council Files Related to Home-Sharing/Short Term Rentals as of December 12, 2018

Summary Listing of Council Files related to Home-Sharing/Short Term Rentals as of December 12, 2018  (Search SATT Weekly Posting)

  • 14-1635-S2 Short-Term Rentals / Preparation of Ordinance / Home Sharing Ordinance 12/11/2018
  • 14-1635-S3 Short-Term Rentals / Ordinance Draft / Request for Information (RFI) / Permitting and Enforcement Technology Services 11/29/2018
  • 14-1635-S4 Homesharing Regulation / Primary Residences Subject to Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) / Council District 13 / Pilot Program 12/11/2018
  • 14-1635-S5 Vacation Rentals in Non-Primary Homes / Ordinance 12/11/2018
  • 14-1635-S6 Home-Sharing Ordinance / California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Clearances / Amendments 12/11/2018
  • 14-1635 Short-Term Room and Home Rental Regulations / Review 06/23/2017
  • 14-1635-S1 Short-Term Rentals / Transient Occupancy Tax / Citys Affordable Housing Trust Fund 06/01/2017

Council and Committee Referral – December 7, 2018

14-0079-S4  Install electric vehicle charging stations in the public right-of-way
To Transportation Committee
Motion (Huizar – Harris-Dawson) – Instruct relevant City departments, and in consultation with the Mayor’s Electric Vehicle Task Force, to present in 60 days, a pilot program, including rules and guidelines, that would allow private entities to install electric vehicle charging stations in the public right-of-way, including a streamlined, online application and permitting process.

 

Council and Committee Referrals – December 11 , 2018

14-1635-S6  Home-Sharing Ordinance  – CEQA
To Planning and Land Use Management Committee
Motion (Cedillo – Harris-Dawson – Wesson, Jr.) – Instruct Department of City Planning, in consultation with relevant City departments, prepare and present clearances under the California Environmental Quality Act for amendments, as directed in the Motion, to the Home-Sharing Ordinance.
14-1635-S5  Regulate vacation rentals in non-primary homes
To Planning and Land Use Management Committee
Motion (Wesson, Jr. – Harris-Dawson – Cedillo – et al.) – Instruct the Department of City Planning, in consultation with the City Attorney, Chief Legislative Analyst, City Administrative Officer and other relevant departments, prepare and present an Ordinance, to regulate vacation rentals in non-primary homes
14-1635-S4
CD 13
 Homesharing in primary residences – Pilot Program CD 13
To Planning and Land Use Management Committee
Motion (O’Farrell – Wesson, Jr.) – Instruct the Planning Department, with the assistance of the City Attorney, to develop recommendations for a Pilot Program in Council District 13 that would regulate homesharing in primary residences subject to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance.

Council and Committee Referral – December 12, 2018

18-1226  Analysis on SB 50 (Weiner)
To Planning and Land Use Management Committee
Motion (Koretz – Harris-Dawson) – Relative to the Department of City Planning, with the assistance of the City Attorney, to report back with analysis on SB 50 (Weiner) detailing its potential impacts to the City’s land use regulatory and zoning including background information on SB 50’s proposed concepts of major transit stops and job-rich areas.
18-1222  Expediting housing production.
To Housing Committee
Motion (Price, Jr. – Cedillo) – Direct relevant City departments, in consultation with the City Attorney, to convene a working group with the goal of preparing a report and new departmental procedures relative to alleviating any barriers to expediting housing production.

Street Trees Policy

CF 15-0448       AT CITY COUNCIL 12/12/2018

PUBLIC WORKS AND GANG REDUCTION COMMITTEE REPORT and COMMUNICATION FROM CHAIR, PERSONNEL AND ANIMAL WELFARE COMMITTEE relative to street tree policies in relation to private development and new construction.

Recommendations for Council action, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MAYOR:

REQUEST the City Attorney to prepare and present an Ordinance to establish a new fee schedule for inspection services provided by the Bureau of Street Services (BSS), Urban Forestry Division in relation to the clearance added to the Building Clearance Handbook.

RESOLVE that the employment authority in the BSS for one Tree Surgeon Supervisor I (Class Code 3117-1) is APPROVED and CONFIRMED for the period November 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019 to support inspection services provided by the BSS in relation to the clearance added to the Building Clearance Handbook, subject to review and approval by the Personnel Department as to Civil Service classification, and allocation by the Civil Service Commission.

Fiscal Impact Statement: The City Administrative Officer reports that there is no impact to the General Fund. The recommendations above are in compliance with the City’s Financial Policies as the proposed fees are estimated to fully recover the costs of providing the associated services.

Community Impact Statement: None submitted.


Click on the BLUE highlight to view official documents and reports.

  • 12/05/2018 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on December 12, 2018 .  Report from Public Works and Gang Reduction and Animal Welfare Committee (December 5, 2018), Report from City Administrative Officer (October 10, 2018)
  • 11/30/2018 Personnel and Animal Welfare Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on December 5, 2018.  Report from City Administrative Officer (October 10, 2018)
  • 11/15/2018 Public Works and Gang Reduction Committee transmitted Council File to Personnel and Animal Welfare Committee.  Report from City Administrative Officer (October 10, 2018)
  • 11/14/2018 Public Works and Gang Reduction Committee approved item(s) . Report from City Administrative Officer (October 10, 2018)
  • 11/08/2018 Public Works and Gang Reduction Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on November 14, 2018. Report from City Administrative Officer (October 10, 2018)
  • 10/11/2018 City Administrative Officer document(s) referred to Personnel and Animal Welfare Committee; Public Works and Gang Reduction Committee. Report from City Administrative Officer (October 10, 2018)
  • 10/10/2018 Document(s) submitted by City Administrative Officer, as follows:  Report from City Administrative Officer (October 11, 2018)

City Administrative Officer report 0220-05332-0000, dated October 10, 2018, relative to street tree policies in relation to private development and new construction.
09/23/2015 Council action final.

  • 09/22/2015 Council adopted item forthwith.  Report from Public Works and Gang Reduction Committee (September 22, 2015)
  • 09/15/2015 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on September 22, 2015 .  Report from Public Works and Gang Reduction Committee (September 22, 2015), Communication from Forrest Advisory Committee (September 9, 2015),  Refer to CF 15-0448,   Motion (April 14, 2015)
  • 09/14/2015 Public Works and Gang Reduction Committee approved as amended to direct the City Administrative Officer to coordinate the report back requested by Motion, and to include the Community Forrest Advisory Committee as a reporting agency. Communication from Forrest Advisory Committee (September 9, 2015),  Refer to CF 15-0448,   Motion (April 14, 2015)
  • 09/11/2015 Public Works and Gang Reduction Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on September 14, 2015.    Refer to CF 15-0448,   Motion (April 14, 2015)
  • 08/17/2015 Community Impact Statement submitted by Studio City Neighborhood Council.   Refer to CF 15-0448
  • 08/10/2015 Community Impact Statement submitted by Greater Valley Glen Neighborhood Council.  Refer to CF 15-0448
  • 04/14/2015 Motion referred to Public Works and Gang Reduction Committee.  Motion (April 14, 2015)

 

 

Adopt-A-Lot Pilot Program / City-Owned Vacant Lots

CF 18-0630     

COMMUNICATION FROM THE MUNICIPAL FACILITIES COMMITTEE relative to negotiating and executing a master lease or license agreement with Kounkuey Design Initiative, for no monetary rent, to implement the Adopt-A-Lot Pilot Program for temporary uses of up to ten vacant lots to serve the residents of the City.

(Information, Technology, and General Services Committee report to be submitted in Council. If a public hearing is not held in Committee, an opportunity for public comment will be provided.)


Click on the BLUE highlight to view official documents and reports.

  • 12/14/2018 Council action final.  12/12/2018
  • 12/12/2018 Council adopted item forthwith.    Report from Information, Technology, and General Services Committee 12/11/2018
  • 12/11/2018 Information, Technology, and General Services Committee approved item(s) .  Report from Municipal Facilities Committee (November 28, 2018),  Motion (June 27, 2018)
  • 12/10/2018 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on December 12, 2018.   Report from Municipal Facilities Committee (November 28, 2018)
  • 12/07/2018 Information, Technology, and General Services Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on December 11, 2018.  Report from Municipal Facilities Committee (November 28, 2018)
  • 11/28/2018 Municipal Facilities Committee document(s) referred to Information, Technology, and General Services Committee.   Report from Municipal Facilities Committee (November 28, 2018)
  • 11/28/2018 Document(s) submitted by Municipal Facilities Committee, as follows:  Report from Municipal Facilities Committee (November 28, 2018)

Municipal Facilities Committee report 0220-05166-0002, dated November 28, 2018, with Department of General Services report, dated November 15, 2018, relative to a master license agreement with Kounkuey Design Initiative, a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, for use of up to ten City-owned vacant lots in the Adopt-A-Lot Pilot Program.

  • 06/27/2018 Motion document(s) referred to Information, Technology, and General Services Committee.  Motion (June 27, 2018)

 

Special Election / Special Runoff Election / 12th District / Vacancy

CF 19-1300   AT CITY COUNCIL  12/12/2018

COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY and CITY CLERK, RESOLUTION, and ORDINANCE FIRST CONSIDERATION relative to calling a Special Election, and a Special Runoff Election, for the purpose of filling a prospective vacancy in the Twelfth District of the Los Angeles City Council.

(Rules, Elections, and Intergovernmental Relations Committee report to be submitted in Council. If a public hearing is not held in Committee, an opportunity for public comment will be provided.)


Click on the BLUE highlight to view official documents and reports.

City Attorney report R18-0366, dated December 3, 2018, relative to a draft Ordinance calling a Special Election on June 4, 2019 and Special Runoff Election on August 13, 2019, for the purpose of filling a prospective vacancy in the 12th District of the Los Angeles City Council.

  • 11/09/2018 City Clerk document(s) referred to Rules, Elections, and Intergovernmental Relations Committee. Report from City Clerk (November 9, 2018)
  • 11/09/2018 Document(s) submitted by City Clerk, as follows: Report from City Clerk (November 9, 2018)

Office of the City Clerk report, dated November 9, 2018, relative to the Special Election to fill the vacancy in the Office of Member of the City Council, 12th District.

Article: California officially becomes first in nation mandating solar power for new homes

‘Historic undertaking’ expected to boost number of rooftop solar panels across the Golden State.

 By e | Southern California News Group
 
(File photo by Will Lester- The Press-Enterprise/SCNG)

California officially became the first state in the nation on Wednesday to require homes built in 2020 and later be solar powered.

To a smattering of applause, the state Building Standards Commission voted unanimously to add energy standards approved last May by another panel to the state building code.

Two commissioners and several public speakers lauded the new code as “a historic undertaking” and a model for the nation.

“These provisions really are historic and will be a beacon of light for the rest of the country,” said Kent Sasaki, a structural engineer and one of six commissioners voting for the new energy code. “(It’s) the beginning of substantial improvement in how we produce energy and reduce the consumption of fossil fuels.”

The new provisions are expected to dramatically boost the number of rooftop solar panels in the Golden State. Last year, builders took out permits for more than 115,000 new homes — almost half of them for single-family homes.

Wednesday’s action upholds a May 9 vote by another body, the California Energy Commission, seeking to fulfill a decade-old goal to make the state reliant on cleaner, alternative energy. The energy panel’s vote was subject to final approval by the Building Standards Commission.

The Building Standards Commission was limited to reviewing the energy panel’s rulemaking process, not the content of the standards, said commission Chairwoman Marybel Batjer. Commissioners said the process was more than sufficient, with 35 meetings, hearings and webinars held over a 15-month period. The energy panel received more than 3,000 comments from over 100 stakeholders, officials said.

While nobody spoke Wednesday in opposition to the new provisions, the commission received more than 300 letters from around the state opposing the solar mandate because of the added cost.

Energy officials estimated the provisions will add $10,000 to the cost of building a single-family home, about $8,400 from adding solar and about $1,500 for making homes more energy-efficient. But those costs would be offset by lower utility bills over the 30-year lifespan of the solar panels.

One commission member worried the mandate would make it harder for California wildfire victims to rebuild, but supporters assured him that won’t be a problem.

Homeowners will have two options that eliminate the upfront costs of adding solar: Leasing the solar panels or signing a “power purchase agreement” that pays for the electricity without buying the panels, said Drew Bohan, executive director of the California Energy Commission.

One solar-industry representative said the net savings from adding solar power will be around $40 a month or nearly $500 a year.

“These standards won’t necessarily make homes more expensive to buy. What they will do is save money on utility costs,” said Pierre Delforge, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “This is not only the right thing to do for the climate, it is financially smart.”

Meanwhile, the changes won endorsements both from environmentalists and the California Building Industry Association.

“Six years ago, I was very fearful of this,” said Bob Raymer, technical director for the state building association. “But the very open arrangement that we have with the (energy commission) … brought us to the point where we can support this.”

Homebuilders have been preparing for years to meet a proposed requirement that all new homes be “net-zero,” meaning they would produce enough solar power to offset all electricity and natural gas consumed over the course of a year.

Provisions adopted Wednesday relaxed that goal a bit, requiring new homes only offset electricity used but not natural gas.

To meet net-zero energy goals, a typical house would need the capacity to produce 7 or 8 kilowatts of electricity, which wouldn’t be cost-effective, Raymer told the commission. But a modest amount of solar — producing about 3 kilowatts of power — would be cost-effective in all of California’s 16 climate zones.

In addition to the solar mandate, the new provisions tighten green homebuilding standards, with such requirements as thicker attic and wall insulation, more efficient windows and doors and improved ventilation systems. They also encourage developers to add battery storage and heat-pump water heaters to new homes.

But the heart of the update is the solar power requirement, which applies to all new residential buildings up to three stories high, including apartments. The code allows some exceptions, such as when the structures are in shady areas or when electricity rates already are lower than the cost of generating solar power.

The rules also allow for offsite solar production, so developments can build solar arrays feeding multiple homes or contract with utility-owned solar farms.

“We have lots of options,” said Raymer, the building industry’s technical director.

Hundreds of letters, most of them form letters, poured into the capital opposing the solar mandate.

The solar mandate “will be costly to homeowners in California and also eliminates personal choice,” said a letter signed by Butte County Treasurer-Tax Collector Peggy Moak. Moak said the tab for installing solar panels is a lot higher than the $8,400 estimate, “running more than $25,000.”

“With median home prices in California already more than double the national average, this decision will make it even more difficult for the average Californian to afford a home,” added a letter signed by Assemblyman James Gallagher, R-Yuba City.

Several solar industry representatives speaking Wednesday supported the provisions, including a representative of Tesla, which builds battery storage systems for homes.

“The homeowners will be able to save money from the day they walk in the door,” said Kelly Knutsen, technology advancement director for the California Solar & Storage Association. “This is a historical policy. California is leading the country in clean energy, clean air and fighting climate change, all while saving consumers money.”

City Planner / Class Code 7944 / Department of City Planning / Community Planning Division / Exemption Request

CF 18-1157  AT CITY COUNCIL 12/11/2018

COMMUNICATION FROM CHAIR, PERSONNEL AND ANIMAL WELFARE COMMITTEE relative to the exemption of one City Planner (Class Code 7944) position for the Department of City Planning (DCP) from the Civil Service pursuant to Charter Section 1001(d)(4).

Recommendation for Council action:

APPROVE the exemption of one City Planner (Class Code 7944) position to be utilized by the DCP to support the Metro Transit-Oriented District Grant.

Fiscal Impact Statement: None submitted by the DCP. Neither the City Administrative Officer nor the Chief Legislative Analyst has completed a financial analysis of this report.

Community Impact Statement: None submitted.


Click on the green highlight to view official documents and reports.

Department of City Planning report, dated November 29, 2018, relative to the request for exemption of one City Planner position for the Department of City Planning Community Planning Division.

Council and Committee Referral – December 5, 2018

14-1174-S62
CD 6
 Reseda/Canoga Park Redevelopment Project Area
To Economic Development Committee
Motion (Martinez – Krekorian) – Authorize the expenditure of tax exempt CRA/LA Excess Proceed Bonds available in Council District Six from the Reseda/Canoga Park Redevelopment Project Area to be utilized by the Bureau of Street Services for sidewalk and median repair and landscape improvements along Sherman Way, between White Oak and Louise Avenues.

Article: Why IKEA Wants to Move Downtown

IKEA plans to boost its online offerings and open 30 smaller stores in city centers over the next two years.

The retail giant plans to open a series of “city center” stores, starting in Manhattan. It’s a notable departure from its usual big-box suburban megastores.

Next spring, IKEA is moving to the heart of Manhattan.

For anyone who knows the furniture retailer’s massive blue-box megastores, this might come as a surprise. But what you’ll find at the Midtown outpost is something new: a “Planning Studio” with a much smaller footprint, where New Yorkers can get one-on-one advice before ordering items for delivery.

The store concept, announced Monday, signals a new approach for the Swedish company, whose massive stores are often found in sprawling locations near the edge of metropolitan areas. The Manhattan storefront will be the first of five “city center” stores to open in the U.S.—with others coming to Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. In total, IKEA plans to open 30 such stores globally over the next two years. At the same time, it’s ramping up its online offerings and delivery services. Combined, the strategy is an attempt to remain competitive in a tumultuous era for retail, and to go up against the likes of Amazon and Wayfair to attract younger customers.

“It’s an example of how we’re reaching our customers in new ways, so it will be more accessible and more personalized,” Angele Robinson-Gaylord, president of U.S. property at IKEA, said of the upcoming stores.

To some degree, IKEA’s past success can be attributed to its focus on accessibility. The company dominated the furniture market by selling good design at prices that are attainable by lower-income and more money-conscious consumers. Its focus on flat-pack products also allowed it to offer lower costs of transportation for furniture, whether it’s a customer moving products in their own cars or paying to have them delivered. Still, the stores’ more remote physical locations can be difficult for many people to get to, especially if they don’t own a car.

That increasingly represents a hitch in the company’s accessibility sell. IKEA has compensated for this by opening more convenient order and pick-up points in remote areas, and by running complimentary shuttles (and even a water taxi) in neighborhoods like Brooklyn.

By setting up shop downtown, the retailer could be establishing a vital lifeline.

IKEA, which has been content to sit on its laurels for a long time—and I think correctly so, because they saw themselves as the disruptor—had the retail landscape change over them in a pretty short period of time,” said Bob Hoyler, a home and tech analyst for the marketing research firm Euromonitor. “And one thing that’s hurt them is that they were clearly not really prepared for that.”

In November, the company announced it was slashing 7,500 mostly administrative jobs and ramping up its online and delivery efforts, citing a 50 percent jump in online sales this year. It had earlier nixed plans for three big-box stores in Nashville, Tennessee; Cary, North Carolina; and Glendale, Arizona. All in all, the investments have brought its full-year profits down 26 percent, according to Reuters.

But brick-and-mortar stores will continue to be important because—surprise!—younger shoppers still prefer physical locations. In a 2017 survey by the National Retail Federation, only 34 percent of Millennials and Gen Z-ers considered themselves primarily online shoppers. Another survey, from the trade publication Home Furnishing News, found that 63 percent of shoppers between 21 and 36 still want that in-store experience when shopping for furniture.

IKEA’s own market research for its Manhattan store revealed that New Yorkers still like to browse stores when furniture shopping, said Robinson-Gaylord. It’s just that they’d rather have the big and bulky items delivered. And IKEA knows that it’s all about location; if shoppers can’t get to a physical store, they will turn to shopping on their phones and computers.

“There’s a natural desire for customers to want to see and feel the product first,” said Hoyler. “But as consumers became more comfortable with buying furniture sight-unseen, the migration of e-commerce happened really rapidly in that industry.”

As my colleague Sarah Holder illustrated in her report on the cut-throat business of selling mattresses, the furniture industry has been ripe for disruption as companies cater to younger shoppers. “The most important demographic still in the U.S., as far as total furniture sales go, is Generation X,” Hoyler said. “Although, that’s fast changing as Millennials age.”

All the while, the number of traditional home furnishing stores has fallen since the Great Recession, from nearly 65,500 in 2007 to fewer than 50,000 in 2017, according to Euromonitor. During that time, the proportion of indoor furniture sales made online grew more than three-fold, from 4 percent to 12.5 percent. Amazon and Wayfair are undoubtedly the big players, but smaller ventures like Casper, Article, Campaign, and Burrow have also been crowding the market in recent years with their own furniture-in-a-box pitch.

So can IKEA still be a disruptor?

To the store’s credit, it has taken advantage of the urban dwelling trend in some notable ways. In 2014, it recruited 20 designers to design a collection called “On the move,” with adaptable furniture for small-space living and for renters who are constantly, well, on the move. Today, low-cost lines like Lack tables, Billy bookcases, and the Malm collection are staples of college dorms and first apartments. It also designed a (doomed) commuter bike and collaborated with British industrial designer Tom Dixon to design products for urban farming. One of the company’s smartest moves, Hoyler says, is acquiring TaskRabbit in 2017, allowing consumers to pay for on-demand furniture assembly service.

Hoyler doesn’t see IKEA’s future in e-commerce to be particularly challenging, given its name recognition and abundance in real estate. It’s currently building more fulfillment centers, Hoyler said, and can easily transform its big-box stores into warehouses if need be—the way Walmart did with many Sam’s Club centers earlier this year. But the big-box stores aren’t going anywhere just yet, Robinson-Gaylord said. Two new ones are currently in the works: one in Norfolk, Virginia, and another in San Antonio, Texas.

Indeed, as journalist and furniture retail expert Warren Shoulberg wrote in Forbes, patience has always been a founding principle of the company’s global expansion. In the U.S., IKEA spent years studying the successes and failures of its first store outside Philadelphia before opening a second location. Whereas for other retailers, Shoulberg wrote, it’s “open first, figure it out later.”

I asked Robinson-Gaylord if she felt IKEA was late in the game with the U.S. market; it had already begun testing city-center stores in Spain, Norway, Finland, and the U.K. She said her team had been in the research phase until recently. “We’ve done a series of home visits and focus groups, and had a lot of conversations with our customers” in New York City, she said. “And it took a little while to understand what they wanted and needed.”

Linda Poon,   is an assistant editor at CityLab covering science and urban technology, including smart cities and climate change. She previously covered global health and development for NPR’s Goats and Soda blog

Article: Why do all new apartment buildings look the same?

By

A wave of sameness has washed over new residential architecture. U.S. cities are filled with apartment buildings sporting boxy designs and somewhat bland facades, often made with colored panels and flat windows.

Due to an Amazon-fueled apartment construction boom over the last decade, Seattle has been an epicenter of this new school of structural simulacra. But Seattle is not alone. Nearly every city, from Charlotte to Minneapolis, has seen a proliferation of homogenous apartments as construction has increased again in the wake of the financial recession.

A Twitter query seeking to name this ubiquitous style was a goldmine. Some suggestions seemed inspired by the uniformity of design in computer programs and games: Simcityism, SketchUp contemporary, Minecraftsman, or Revittecture. Some took potshots at the way these buildings looked value-engineered to maximize profit: Developer modern, McUrbanism, or fast-casual architecture. Then there are the aesthetic judgement calls: contemporary contempt, blandmarks, LoMo (low modern), and Spongebuild Squareparts.

“Part of what people are responding to isn’t the building themselves, it’s that there are so many of them going up so quickly, all in the same places in the city,” says Richard Mohler, an associate professor of architecture at the University of Washington.

Shutterstock

Many of the replies to the Twitter call simply pointed out that these buildings are housing, and much-needed housing at that. Though they can be defined or classified by aesthetics, this wave of new apartments is perhaps best described as a symbol of today’s housing problems: a lack of developable land; rising land, material, and labor costs; and an acute need to find more affordable places for people to live.

“At the end of the day, if you line up multifamily apartments from Boston, San Francisco, and Miami that have been built in the last decade, you’re going to see a very strong pattern,” says Scott Black, senior vice president of Bristol Development, a Nashville-based firm that develops apartments across the Southeast.

Good architecture should always respond to the local context. In the case of these buildings, the local economic context just happens to be the same in just about every major U.S. city.

“Critics don’t understand what we’re working with, the parameters and the financial constraints,” says Black. “It’s like any other business: If you’re selling autos or selling widgets, there are certain costs, and a certain profit you need to make to do business in the future.”

Shutterstock

It boils down to code, costs, and craft

Perhaps the biggest constraint in the urban U.S. apartment market, a $61 billion annual industry, is the amount of available space. Many cities zone with an overwhelming preference for detached, single-family homes, with small corridors in downtowns or dense areas set aside for large, multistory towers. In Seattle, for instance, roughly three-quarters of residential land is zoned for single-family homes. That means new apartments are forced to cluster in small areas of the city, amplifying the impact of a rash of new, similar buildings.

The buildings themselves are an effort to fit within the small niches made available by local building and zoning codes. According to Mohler, due to height limits and safety/fire requirements, most of these structures are what’s known as “5 over 1” or “one-plus-five”: five stories of wood-framed construction, which contain apartments, over a concrete base, which usually contains retail or commercial space, or parking structures. Some codes also mandate a modulated facade, or varying exteriors across adjacent buildings to avoid repetition.

Cities’ design review boards can add to the pressures caused by zoning. Ideally, these groups work with architects and developers to improve upcoming buildings and make them more compatible with the neighborhood. Mohler says that’s not always the case; in some cities, there’s a tendency to rubber-stamp structures that have already proven themselves, leading to a formulaic feel.

Code constraints, which allow construction on restricted areas, help create the second major restraint: cost. The reason our cities are filled with so much of the same kind of building is because it’s the cheapest way to build an apartment. In this case, that’s light-frame wood construction, which often uses flat windows that are easy to install; a process called rainscreen cladding to create the skin of the building; as well as Hardie panels, a facade covering made from fiber cement.

The need to cut costs limits facade options, says Black. Hardie Panels run roughly $16 a square foot, roughly the same cost as brick. The next upgrade, metal siding, costs from $25 to $50 a square foot, potentially more than triple the cost.

“Since we’re facing a housing affordability crisis, it makes a certain amount of sense to build a building as affordably as we can,” says Mohler.

According to Black, variation is costly. Many units get made to a standard size, say 12-foot-wide bedrooms. Repeat that a few times per floor, maximized to create rentable space, and you start a domino effect toward generic architecture, because the floor plates end up very similar. Once the interior is laid out, there are ways to make the exterior look more interesting using setbacks, materials, and massing. But giving up space for units and creating more complicated construction plans cuts into profitability.

“The bigger issue is construction costs have escalated pretty significantly over the last two years,” says Black. “We need to deliver a product within a price point. People don’t always understand the margins we work with. We really do want to build something that’ll sparkle and shine and look great from the outside. At the end of the day, we feel like we’re able to do that.”

Some critics dismiss the cost issue as a small piece of a larger problem. Michael Paglia, a writer for Westword in Denver, penned a popular piece about his city’s rash of bad design, “Denver is Drowning in Awful Architecture.” He feels architects aren’t just cost-constrained, but are being left out of the equation. Computer-aided design has led to a degradation of the role of architect, Paglia argued, replacing a noble craft with a series of equations that wring every last bit of value out of a site, aesthetics be damned. Formulaic floorplans are cost effective, while good design is considered an unaffordable luxury, concentrated, like so much else, among the 1 percent.

“I don’t think you can call the designers of these buildings designers or architects,” he told Curbed. “I think accountants are designing these buildings.”

The art of design has become a science, he says, and that’s created another important, but less tangible, constraint on new construction—the loss of construction craft. Paglia feels that construction standards, and the expectations renters have of new buildings, have diminished.

“Many of the renters living in those buildings don’t even know they’re terrible,” he says. “And as far as cost constraints go, talk to someone in Florence, Italy, where there are numerous constraints on development. Nothing is an excuse for bad design.”

Mohler agrees that there are tangible difference between the apartments of today and yesteryear. Older apartment buildings have something that the Hardie-clad structures lack, a certain texture and materiality.

“Today’s flat window may be a great product, easy to install and cost-effective,” he says. “But the depth of facade on older buildings offers a whole new level of detail and scale.”

Shutterstock

History judges architecture on a curve

Since the constraints creating the conditions for this generic apartment architecture show little sign of abating, cities may be stuck with buildings like these for the foreseeable future. New construction slowed this year after peaking in 2017, but that still means 283,000 new apartments are expected to be finished by the end of the year, many in this generic style. What happens to them further down the road, decades and generations from now?

“I don’t think these buildings will be around in 40 years. They’ll collapse and be maintenance problems,” says Paglia. “We’ll remember the small sliver of good architecture being built today.”

Mohler, though, thinks time will play a trick on detractors of today’s bland, boxy buildings. He points to neighborhoods of identical bungalows, celebrated and often enshrined as historic districts. At the time they were built, in the early half of the 20th century, they weren’t the product of forward-thinking architects seeking to create character-filled dwellings for today’s homeowners to drool over. They were factoring in cost, code, and craft, and creating their own equations to maximize profit and product. Placing them above today’s building, often meant to meet contemporary needs for affordable housing, can be, as McMansion Hell’s Kate Wagner wrote, a form of “aesthetic moralism.”

“Many of these houses were the same, and many were completely identical to each other because they were being built by a single developer,” Mohler says of past urban developments. “At the time, it was criticized for wasting land and all looking the same. Looking identical today means neighborhood character. If it’s old and looks the same, it’s good, but if it’s new and all looks the same, it’s bad.”

Even Mohler doesn’t say these boxy builds will be celebrated in coming decades. But, arising from an era with an acute housing shortage, perhaps they’ll have kitsch appeal, or be appreciated for what they represent: a part of the solution to today’s housing crisis.

“I’m optimistic that people’s opinions of these buildings will change over time,” he says. “Will they be celebrated? Not likely. But will they be more accepted? Probably.”

 

 

Supportive Housing and Transitional Housing

Inter-Departmental Correspondence (November 15, 2018)

The purpose of this memo is to provide guidance on zoning code regulations as they apply to the
development of Supportive Housing and Transitional Housing, in a manner consistent with
California Government Code Section 65583 and the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC), as of
the date of this memo. This memo provides guidance on five areas of clarification related to
Supportive Housing, Transitional Housing and Supportive Services.

City Planning / Systematic Update of Community Plans and Batching General Plan Amendments / Various Planning and Case Processing Reforms

CF 16-0422    AT PLM 12/04/2018

The City of Los Angeles ’ General Plan is the blueprint for the City ’ s built environment and land use development. Community Plans, 35 in all, comprise the unique visions and implementation plans for each community and neighborhood in Los Angeles. These Community Plans describe a range of land uses and intensities that are appropriate for each area, as well as land use policies to promote compatible in-fill development, protect existing neighborhood scale and character, and provide for orderly and well-planned economic growth.


Click on the green highlighted date to view official documents and reports.

  • 11/30/2018 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on December 4, 2018.  Report from City Planning (October 25, 2018)
  • 11/06/2018 Planning and Land Use Management Committee continued item to/for a date to be determined.
  • 11/02/2018 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on November 6, 2018.  Report from City Planning (October 25, 2018)
  • 10/31/2018 Department of City Planning document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee.  Report from City Planning (October 25, 2018)
  • 10/29/2018 Document(s) submitted by Department of City Planning, as follows:  Report from City Planning (October 25, 2018)
    Department of City Planning report, dated October 25, 2018, relative to an update on the status of the Department’s Community Plan program.
  • 05/02/2018 Council action (May 2, 2018)
  • 05/01/2018 Council adopted item, subject to reconsideration, pursuant to Council Rule 51.  Report from PLUM (April 17, 2018)
  • 04/27/2018 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on May 1, 2018 .  Report from PLUM (April 17, 2018)
  • 04/17/2018 Planning and Land Use Management Committee received and filed item(s). Department of City Planning to report back. Report from Department of City Planning (April 5, 2018)
  • 04/13/2018 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on April 17, 2018.  Report from Department of City Planning (April 5, 2018)
  • 04/06/2018 Department of City Planning document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee.  Report from Department of City Planning (April 5, 2018)
  • 04/06/2018 Document(s) submitted by Department of City Planning, as follows:   Report from Department of City Planning (April 5, 2018)

Department of City Planning report, dated April 5, 2018, relative to the status of the Community Plan Program, EIR Consultant procurement, and General Plan Amendment batching.

  • 08/15/2017 Council action final.  Final Ordinance No.185,114 (September 17, 2017), Council Action (August 15, 2017), Communication from Mayor (August 14, 2017),  Report from PLM Committee (July 25, 2017)
  • 08/14/2017 Mayor transmitted file to City Clerk. Ordinance effective date: September 17, 2017.
  • 08/09/2017 City Clerk transmitted file to Mayor. Last day for Mayor to act is August 21, 2017.   Report from PLM Committee (July 25, 2017) , Draft Ordinance (July 17, 2017)
  • 08/08/2017 Council adopted item, subject to reconsideration, pursuant to Council Rule 51.
  • 08/01/2017 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on August 8, 2017 .  Report from PLM Committee (July 25, 2017) , Draft Ordinance (July 17, 2017)
  • 07/25/2017 Planning and Land Use Management Committee approved item(s) from the City Attorney dated July 17, 2017. The Committee also noted and filed the City Administrative Officer report dated July 13, 2017.  Report from City Attorney (July 17, 2017), Draft Ordinance (July 17, 2017) ,  Report from City Administrative Officer (July 13, 2017)
  • 07/21/2017 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on July 25, 2017.  Report from City Attorney (July 17, 2017), Draft Ordinance (July 17, 2017) ,  Report from City Administrative Officer (July 13, 2017)
  • 07/18/2017 City Attorney document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Report from City Attorney (July 17, 2017), Draft Ordinance (July 17, 2017)
  • 07/17/2017 Document(s) submitted by City Attorney, as follows:  Report from City Attorney (July 17, 2017), Draft Ordinance (July 17, 2017)

City Attorney report R17-0232, dated July 17, 2017, relative to a draft ordinance amending the Los Angeles Municipal Code to increase the general plan maintenance surcharge fee to fund an expansion of the Planning Departments Community Planning Program.

  • 07/13/2017 City Administrative Officer document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee.  Report from City Administrative Officer (July 13, 2017),
  • 07/13/2017 Document(s) submitted by City Administrative Officer, as follows:  Report from City Administrative Officer (July 13, 2017)

City Administrative Officer report 0220-04851-0012, dated July 13, 2017, relative to an increase to the General Plan Maintenance Surcharge to fund the Expanded Community Planning Program.

  • 05/09/2017 Community Impact Statement submitted by Palms Neighborhood Council.  Refer CF 16-0422
  • 03/07/2017 Council action final (March 7, 2017),  Report from PLM Committee (February 28, 2017),
  • 03/03/2017 Council adopted item, subject to reconsideration, pursuant to Council Rule 51.   Report from PLM Committee (February 28, 2017), Report from City Planning (February 21, 2017)
  • 02/28/2017 Planning and Land Use Management Committee approved item(s) .
  • 02/27/2017 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on March 3, 2017 .  Community Impact Statement submitted by Glassell Park Neighborhood Council – February 22, 2017.  Refer CF 16-0422)
  • 02/24/2017 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on February 28, 2017. Report from City Administrative Officer (February 24, 2017), Community Impact Statement submitted by Glassell Park Neighborhood Council – February 22, 2017.  Refer CF 16-0422), Report from City Planning (February 21, 2017)
  • 02/24/2017 City Administrative Officer document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee.  Report from City Administrative Officer (February 24, 2017)
  • 02/24/2017 Document(s) submitted by City Administrative Officer, as follows:  Report from City Administrative Officer (February 24, 2017)

City Administrative Officer report 0220-05347-0000, dated February 24, 2017, relative to an increase to the General Plan Maintenance Surcharge to fund the expanded Community Planning Program.

  • 02/23/2017 Department of City Planning document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee.  Report from City Planning (February 21, 2017)
  • 02/23/2017 Document(s) submitted by Department of City Planning, as follows:  Report from City Planning (February 21, 2017)

Department of City Planning report, dated February 21, 2017, relative to a report back on necessary budget resources, funding needs, and staffing analysis to accelerate the envisioned ten-year community plan cycle to a six-year cycle.

  • 02/22/2017 Community Impact Statement submitted by Glassell Park Neighborhood Council.  Refer CF 16-0422
  • 02/10/2017 Council action final (February 10, 2017),  Report from PM (January 31, 2017)
  • 02/08/2017 Council adopted item, subject to reconsideration, pursuant to Council Rule 51.  Report from PM (January 31, 2017)
  • 02/03/2017 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on February 8, 2017 .
  • 01/31/2017 Planning and Land Use Management Committee approved item(s) .Report from City Planning (January 26, 2017)
  • 01/27/2017 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on January 31, 2017.
  • 01/27/2017 Department of City Planning document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee.
  • 01/26/2017 Document(s) submitted by Department of City Planning, as follows: Report from City Planning (January 26, 2017)

Department of City Planning report, dated January 26, 2017, relative to Community Plans, General Plan Amendment batching, and Environmental Impact Report consultants.

  • 09/13/2016 Planning and Land Use Management Committee continued item to/for undetermined date.
  • 09/09/2016 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on September 13, 2016.  Report from City Planning (August 26,2016)
  • 09/06/2016 Planning and Land Use Management Committee continued item to/for September 13, 2016 .
  • 09/02/2016 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on September 6, 2016. Report from City Planning (August 26,2016)
  • 08/26/2016 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on August 30, 2016 – CANCELLED.  Report from City Planning (August 26,2016)
  • 08/26/2016 Department of City Planning document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee.  Report from City Planning (August 26,2016)
  • 08/26/2016 Document(s) submitted by Department of City Planning, as follows:  Report from City Planning (August 26,2016)

Department of City Planning report, dated August 26, 2016, relative to a report back regarding System for Updating Community Plans, Batching General Plan Amendments, Environmental Impact Report Consultants, and Technology Plans.

  • 05/31/2016 Planning and Land Use Management Committee continued item to/for undetermined date.
  • 05/27/2016 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on May 31, 2016-Verbal discussion only.
  • 05/26/2016 Department of City Planning document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Report from City Planning (May 26, 2016)
  • 05/26/2016 Document(s) submitted by Department of City Planning, as follows:  Report from City Planning (May 26, 2016)

City Planning report, dated May 26, 2016, relative to a System for Updating Community Plans, Batching General Plan Amendments, Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Consultants and Technology Plans.

  • 04/13/2016 Motion document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Motion  (April 13, 2016)

Removal of Mills Act Fees References / Los Angeles Administrative Code (LAAC) / Ordinance

CF 09-0969-S2    AT PLUM 12/04/2018

Exemption pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378, report from the City Attorney, and draft Ordinance relative to amending Section 19.144 of Article One, Chapter 14, Division 19 of the Los Angeles Administrative Code to remove references to Mills Act fees related to applications and appeals and to cross-reference newly adopted fees in Section 19.01 F of the Los Angeles Municipal Code.

Fiscal Impact Statement: No

Community Impact Statement: None submitted.


  • 11/30/2018 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on December 4, 2018. Report from City Attorney (April 29, 2018), Draft Ordinance (April 9, 2018)
  • 04/10/2018 City Attorney document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Report from City Attorney (April 29, 2018), Draft Ordinance (April 9, 2018)
  • 04/09/2018 Document(s) submitted by City Attorney, as follows:  Report from City Attorney (April 29, 2018), Draft Ordinance (April 9, 2018)

City Attorney report R18-0095, dated April 9, 2018, relative to a draft Ordinance amending the Los Angeles Administrative Code to remove previous references to Mills Act fees and to cross-reference recently adopted Mills Act fees included in the Los Angeles Municipal Code.

  • 03/28/2018 Council action final (March 28, 2018)
  • 03/27/2018 Council adopted item, subject to reconsideration, pursuant to Council Rule 51.  PLM Report (March 20, 2018)     AT CITY COUNCIL 03/27/2018  Adopted, (12); Absent: Krekorian, Martinez, Price (3)
  • 03/21/2018 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on March 27, 2018 .   PLM Report (March 20, 2018)
  • 03/20/2018 Planning and Land Use Management Committee approved item(s) . Motion (February 23, 2018)
  • 03/16/2018 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on March 20, 2018.  Motion (February 23, 2018)
  • 02/23/2018 Motion referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee.  Motion (February 23, 2018)

City Council Referrals

14-1635-S2

To Budget and Finance Committee

To Housing Committee
To Personnel and Animal Welfare Committee
To Planning and Land Use Management Committee
Department of City Planning report, dated November 28, 2018, relative to the Report back on the proposed Home Sharing Ordinance.

14-1635-S3

To Budget and Finance Committee
To Housing Committee
To Personnel and Animal Welfare Committee
To Planning and Land Use Management Committee
Department of City Planning report, dated November 28, 2018, relative to the report back of the Proposed Home Sharing Ordinance.

Subscribe By Email

Get a weekly email of all new posts.

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Skip to toolbar