Starting 2019, please be aware that Green highlights have been changed to BLUE highlights for easier identification!
CF 18-1023
PLANNING AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT relative to various development projects that conflict with Measure JJJ’s Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) Incentives.
Recommendation for Council action, pursuant to Motion (O’Farrell – Huizar):
INSTRUCT the Department of City Planning (DCP), in consultation with the City Attorney, to report within 30 days, on the impact of the Community Redevelopment Agency/LA, A Designated Local Authority (CRA/LA-DLA) June 27, 2018 Memorandum, indicating that six City Redevelopment Plans have land use limitations that potentially detrimentally affect 25 development projects in Redevelopment Project areas, because they conflict with Measure JJJ’s TOC Incentives, and to provide: 1) an update on the status of 25 TOC projects; 2) information as to what development project applicants have been informed by staff regarding their filed applications or those filing applications; and 3) information as to any communication, if any, that has occurred between the DCP and CRA/LA-DLA as to the land use impacts/ramifications of the Memorandum.
Fiscal Impact Statement: Neither the City Administrative Officer nor the Chief Legislative Analyst has completed a financial analysis of this report.
Community Impact Statement: Yes.
For: Los Feliz Neighborhood Council
Click on the BLUE highlight to view official documents and reports.
CF 16-0684 Adopted, (13); Absent: Huizar, Price (2) Final Ordinance No. 186,483 (January 28, 2020)
PLANNING AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT and ORDINANCE FIRST CONSIDERATION relative to implementing and enforcing the labor standards for development projects subject to the Build Better LA Initiative.
Recommendation for Council action, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MAYOR:
PRESENT and ADOPT the accompanying ORDINANCE dated August 28, 2019, adding Article 2 to Chapter XVIII of the Los Angeles Municipal Code to implement and enforce the labor standards for development projects subject to the Build Better LA Initiative.
Fiscal Impact Statement: None submitted by the City Attorney. 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 BLUE highlight to view official documents and reports.
City Attorney report R19-0271, dated August 28, 2019, relative to a draft Ordinance adding Article 2 to Chapter XVIII of the Los Angeles Municipal Code to implement and enforce the labor standards form development projects subject to the “Build Better LA Initiative”.
AGENDA – PLANNING AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT relative to affordable housing and labor standards as related to implementation of Measure JJJ.
Recommendations for Council action:
APPROVE the Bureau of Contract Administration (BCA) recommendations in the report dated June 6, 2018 (attached to the Council file).
INSTRUCT the BCA as the lead, with the assistance of the City Attorney, the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) and the Department of City Planning (DCP), to prepare and present an Ordinance for the administration of projects subject to Measure JJJ, and in consultation with the City Administrative Officer (CAO) and the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA) to include the following:
a. Authorizing the use of the State of California Prevailing Wage Rates as determined by the Office of Policy, Research and Legislation as the appropriate wage rates to be paid to all workers employed on any project awarded subject to Measure JJJ, and in lieu of an advertised date, the date of the developer’s first submittal of a proposal for a project will be used to ascertain the appropriate prevailing wage determination.
b. Applying the Processes and Procedures prepared by the BCA to be utilized as the Bureau’s administrative and enforcement guidelines, which are consistent with existing policies and procedures employed by the BCA, in its enforcement of state and federal prevailing wage rates and the City’s Project Labor Agreements, which include the imposition of penalties, identified in the Proposed JJJ Penalty Chart presented by the BCA, in the event of non-compliance with any of the labor standards mandated by the measure.
c. Authorizing the BCA, in coordination with the CAO, to hire one Management Analyst for the purpose of administering the requirements on Measure JJJ.
d. Authorizing the BCA, in coordination with the LADBS, to not provide clearance for any Certificate of Occupancy for a project until it has been determined that the project has satisfied the labor requirements of Measure JJJ, or until the developer has created an Escrow Account in an amount to be determined by the BCA.
e. Authorizing the BCA to provide status updates during the construction of a project, at the hallway and 3/4 points, to determine compliance.
f. Requiring the developer to submit a fee or other funding mechanism to compensate the Bureau for its administrative and monitoring costs, with this submission being done at the time of, and in no event later than, the issuance of the first building permit for each project which is subject to Measure JJJ.
g. Identifying a fee to implement BCA oversight utilizing the Processes and Procedures, and a fund where such fee would be deposited.
h. Allowing the BCA, in coordination with the CAO, to identify the funds, either in an Escrow Account or the General Fund, where the fees associated with oversight shall be deposited.
RECEIVE and FILE the DCP report dated June 6, 2018 (attached to the Council file), inasmuch as the report is provided for informational purposes.
Fiscal Impact Statement: None submitted by the BCA. Neither the CAO nor the CLA has completed a financial analysis of this report.
Community Impact Statement: None submitted
Executive Office Memo: January 9, 2019
TOC applicants, including those who have filed applications and are in process, those who have received approvals from the Department or those who are by-right and cleared by the Department of Building and Safety, are advised to contact their assigned Department of City Planning project planner or the Department’s Housing Services Unit on options for compliance with City regulations as well as CRA/LA requirements. Planning staff are available to answer questions on potential alternative entitlement options via a consultation. The Department’s Housing Services staff are located on the 5th floor of the Development Services Center at 201 N. Figueroa St., or by calling (213) 202-5456.
| 19-1000 | 2019 City Council meetings held in Van Nuys City Hall. | |
| To Council (tentatively scheduled for January 22, 2019) Motion (Wesson, Jr. – Martinez) – Relative to the 2019 City Council meetings held in Van Nuys City Hall. |
||
| 19-0050 | Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zon | |
| To Public Safety Committee Motion (Blumenfield – Rodriguez) – Request the City Attorney to prepare and present a draft Ordinance amending the Los Angeles Municipal Code to allow for personal notice to an individual who is within a portion of the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone that is not open to the public. |
||
| 19-0046 | Prohibit contributions to City elected officials and candidates | |
| To Rules, Elections, and Intergovernmental Relations Committee Motion (Ryu – Krekorian – et al. – Wesson, Jr.) – Request the City Attorney, in consultation with City Ethics Commission staff, prepare and present a draft Ordinance to prohibit contributions to City elected officials and candidates for City office from developers seeking City approvals for potentially lucrative projects. |
||
With four straight days of rain, the Los Angeles River has come alive. Thanks to Measure W, which was passed by voters last November, projects will be funded and infrastructure will be built to capture, treat and recycle all this rain water.
“We lose trillions of gallons of water out to the ocean every year, and if we were able to capture it, we could supply about half of our water needs locally,” said Jill Sourial with The Nature Conservancy.
Some water reclamation projects like Marsh Park in Elysian Heights are already in use, increasing our water supply, addressing climate change and cleaning urban runoff. This open space manages storm water, functioning like a sponge as the water is slowly absorbed by the soil.
Sourial says Measure W will create more nature in our city and less concrete.
“We want to slow it down, infiltrate it, allow it to penetrate into our aquifers. It can also be reused on site so it can also replace some of that irrigation and watering of our lawns that we do,” said Sourial.
Measure W is predicted to raise $300 million per year for L.A. County off a new property tax for what is called impermeable areas. That would be the driveway of your house, concrete patio or anything that stops water from going into the ground.
The tax is 2.5 cents per square foot of impermeable space and takes effect July 1.
San JoseRecent California reforms designed to make it easier to build granny flats — one fix to ease the housing crisis — have not gone far enough to overcome local bureaucracy and neighborhood opposition, housing advocates say.
But supporters of the small, relatively cheap rentals known as accessory dwelling units are aiming to bolster state law and nudge cities toward more permissive building codes.
Despite easing local restrictions on construction of granny flats, homeowners and city planners report still being flummoxed by the rules.
Steve Vallejos, CEO of Valley Home Development in Fairfield, said after an initial surge of fast-moving ADU permits in 2017, some Bay Area cities have started to slow down the process and add costs with additional environmental and design requirements. “There’s plenty of room for improvement,” Vallejos said.
Wieckowski said he plans to re-introduce legislation to simplify the process and further reduce local fees and restrictions. A reform measure last year failed to pass. “The cities are dragging their feet,” he said.
Some cities are pushing back on more changes to the law, saying they need time to adjust.
“It takes time to develop the ordinances and to update the ordinances,” said Jason Rhine, assistant legislative director for the League of California Cities. The group wants to protect impact fees that support services that would be used by ADU renters.
But other cities are embracing the changes. San Jose leaders in June endorsed a plan they hope will create thousands of new housing units in backyards.
Housing advocates and developers are also actively pushing cities to ease burdens on homeowners looking to add an ADU to their property.
The pro-housing group California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund in December sued San Francisco over zoning restrictions placed on new ADUs. The group is hoping to nudge San Francisco and other cities to clean up local regulations and encourage construction of more auxiliary units to ease the housing shortage.
The suit, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court, charges that city ordinances restrict ADU construction and effectively ban the structures in many new developments. With few exceptions, granny flats would be banned “on the vast majority of single family lots in San Francisco,” the suit said.
The group also contends ADU applications are subject to challenges by neighbors, contrary to state law requiring a simpler, administrative review without public hearings. The group wants San Francisco to amend its ordinance and streamline the approval process.
Dylan Casey, a lawyer for the renters’ group, said city planners are cooperating with them to tweak planning and zoning rules. A San Francisco supervisor working on the issue did not return a message seeking comment.
Casey said the group hopes the suit can be used as an example to encourage other municipalities to adjust zoning laws. “For the most part, localities are complying with it,” he said. “It’s an easy way to add cheap housing.”
David Garcia, a policy director at the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, said planners are still figuring out the new rules. “It’s a pretty sweeping change,” he said. “Not all the planners are on the same page.”
Many more residents are requesting applications for ADUs than actually getting construction permits to build, Garcia said. Homeowners often still find the process daunting and filled with unexpected costs. They report getting conflicting guidance from local planners and being hit with high fees for local services and schools.
Stacy UyBico and her husband bought a 1950s home in Corte Madera four years ago and planned to fix it up. A new roof, foundation and other improvements would help transform their house into a new home.
While they waited for permits, state law loosened requirements for adding accessory dwelling units to properties. The couple, seeking short-term help on their mortgage and a long-term home for older family members, applied to build a 1,200 square foot uni
Although Wieckowski envisioned the process as an “over-the-counter” transaction with minimal input from a town or city planners, UyBico said it has taken much longer.“We thought, this is something we want to pursue,” UyBico said. But after about 18 months of applications,public hearings and appeals, she said, “we were not expecting all the complexities.”
They still haven’t started construction, but hope to this spring.
Berkeley, a city known for its molasses-like approval of multi-unit developments, signed off on two affordable housing projects in December, including one that will be its largest-ever permanent housing project for homeless and low-income residents.
The city notified Bridge Housing and its partner, Berkeley Food & Housing Project (BFHP), that their application for the $110 million Berkeley Way project was approved under state law SB 35, which streamlines the development process and requires no additional hearings be held.
The controversial law, which many city officials, including Mayor Jesse Arreguín, thought usurped local control, went into effect in 2018. The law allows projects providing 50% of residential units at affordable rents (80% of area median income) to bypass much of the usual red tape before breaking ground. It requires cities to approve compliant projects over the counter within 90 days of submittal. The application was submitted in late October and the city approved the project in less than 60 days.
“This is something I’ve been working on for more than 10 years now,” said Mayor Jesse Arreguín. “We have a growing crisis of homelessness, especially in the downtown area. It’s really an exciting project.”
Located at 2012 Berkeley Way, the six-story complex is actually composed of two separate buildings: One will feature 89 rental units affordable at 50%-60% of the area median income. The other will offer 53 permanent supportive housing units for people who were previously homeless and 44 short-term shelter beds, 12 of which will be for veterans. The project team aims to break ground by the end of the year or the beginning of 2020 and expects construction to take two years.A city-owned parking lot with 112 stalls currently operates at the site. There will be no parking after the rebuild.
Ninety-nine percent of the units will be affordable to households earning 60% of the region’s AMI, according to the SB 35 application.
Funding, for what will be the city’s largest permanent affordable housing project ever, will come from various local, state and federal sources.
Arreguín said the city’s investment could decrease, but the council has set aside about $23.5 million, which constitutes its entire affordable housing fund. “It really depends on the ability to find other funding sources,” he said.
The project, which has been in the works for years, became more feasible after voters signed off on raising more money for affordable housing through local Measure O, which passed with more than 77% of the vote in November. The measure authorized Berkeley to sell $135 million in bonds for affordable housing. Voters also passed a companion measure, P, which will use funds generated from increasing the property transfer tax from 1.5% to 2.5% on the top third of properties sold to pay for homeless services.
Bridge Housing donated $35,000 to the campaign to fund the passage of measures O and P, according to city campaign election filings. Many other nonprofit and for-profit developers also contributed to the measures. Berkeley election law limits the amount individuals can donate to candidate campaigns to $250 but there is no limit on donations to measures. Real estate interests donated heavily to the campaign fighting P.
Bridge will operate the affordable housing component, while BFHP will manage the homeless and veteran’s component. BFHP Executive Director Terrie Light said the building will accomplish a decades-old goal in consolidating services and housing for those in need in one spot. BFHP’s existing 32-bed men’s shelter, 12-bed veterans transitional housing program, agency cooking operations and community meal service will move into the new space.
“It’s a huge deal for the city of Berkeley,” she said. “Which is why they’re willing to fund it. It’s a huge piece of solving the problem (of creating housing for chronically homeless people with disabilities and providing them with wrap-around services to keep them housed). So they won’t have to go find them. We can go right to them in the building.”
The project will include a kitchen and dining area for residents and the BFHP daily community meal, which is open to the public. Light said she expects BFHP to have 15 to 20 staff members on site working on the first two floors.
The building will also house office space for Berkeley Mental Health and a small medical suite for Berkeley non-profit LifeLong Medical Care, as well as several conference-style rooms meant for residents to meet with social workers and case managers.
“We’ve been serving people out in the streets for decades, and we’ve always known we’ve needed something like this,” said Light, who has worked at BFHP since 1998. “It’s very exciting for all of us. It’s just too bad we have to wait two more years (until the project’s completion).”
Light’s organization had to move its men’s shelter out of the city-owned Veterans Memorial Building last year due to weather-related problems. The city deemed the building seismically unsafe as far back as 2005. The men’s shelter is now operating in conjunction with the women’s shelter on Dwight Way. BFHP has run into similar difficulties in its 48 years of operation, prompting Light to comment that it has at times been “close to being homeless ourselves as an organization.”
BFHP is looking forward to having a permanent home for many of its operations, Light said.
Until last year, the Berkeley Way project included an underground parking garage that was scrapped after city staff considered more than a dozen ideas. Staff said, during a City Council meeting in September, that including any parking at all would make the project financially infeasible.
According to a city analysis from the fall, the cheapest parking option would have increased the budget by about $40 million and taken up to 25 housing units from the project: “The loss of the parking lot will result in a loss of approximately $665,000 per year for the City of Berkeley, but is preferable to all considered alternatives, which result in even greater revenue losses.” The city noted that it would have cost between $12 million and $21 million to build the garage, which would also have increased project liability. Staff said in September that trying to figure out a parking solution had held up the project by at least a year.
Neighbors and local businesses both expressed significant concern about the loss of parking. The city said it would pursue several ideas to redesign parking in the neighborhood to increase the capacity.
“We spent a lot of time trying to replace the parking at the site,” said Arreguin. “At the end of the day, given the site’s constraints and our desire not to add additional costs, we decided not to (build the garage).”
The city opened the nearby $40 million, 720-car Center Street garage in November, which Arreguin said allowed the city to forego more parking capacity at the Berkeley Way site, which is only a couple blocks from BART.
“Building housing close to public transit is the environmentally responsible thing to do,” Arreguin said by phone, while riding BART.
The next step is for BFHP and Bridge to apply for three grants in January and February, said city spokesman Matthai Chakko.
The city also approved the SB 35 application for 1601 Oxford St. at the corner of Cedar Street on property owned by All Souls Episcopal Parish. though an appeal by neighbors is pending.
Satellite Affordable Housing Associates, which donated $5,000 to the campaign to support measures O and P, will provide 37 residential units, including 34 affordable units for seniors. The City Council set aside $6 million for the development in October. Like Berkeley Way, the approval process for the Oxford Street project would be streamlined via SB 35.
The approval of the Berkeley Way project using authorization from SB 35 is a first for Berkeley, a city notorious for its slow approvals of multi-family dwellings. In September, Berkeley rejected a developer’s SB 35 application to build a 260-unit housing complex at 1900 Fourth St. even though 50% of those units would have been designated as affordable. The project on the old Spenger’s parking lot would have been built on property the city has landmarked as an ancient Ohlone shellmound.
City staff argued that invoking SB 35 for 1900 Fourth St. would have violated the state constitution, which allows cities to protect landmarked areas. Even without the constitutional issue, the project would not comply with local rules around affordability and traffic, and could demolish a historic structure, making it ineligible for the state law, the city alleged.
The owners of the 2.2-acre parcel, Ruegg & Ellsworth and the Frank Spenger Company, have sued Berkeley over the decision.
Berkeleyside reporters Emilie Raguso and Frances Dinkelspiel contributed to this story.
Update 1/18: This article has been updated to clarify the appeal filed by neighbors on the Oxford Street project. Technically, there was an appeal, according to a city spokesman. However, SB35’s “ministerial approval” means that there’s no use permit for the project. So the appeal is no longer viable and the city will not take any further action on the appeal.
Update 5:00 p.m.: This article has been corrected to say that BFHP’s men shelter, but not its headquarters, moved from the Veterans Memorial Building to the Dwight Way building. Also, real estate interests donated to defeat Measure P, not Measure O.
Amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines have been approved by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and filed by the Secretary of State. The OAL approved the amendments on December 28, 2018 and the Secretary of State filed the Guidelines the same day. The amendments are now effective California Regulations.
Following a preparation process that has taken more than five years, amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines are poised to take effect shortly.
In November 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) posted final adopted text for amendments to the CEQA Guidelines. The CNRA has passed these final amendments to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), and the OAL has until December 28, 2018, to complete its review of the new Guidelines. Review by the OAL is the final step before the proposed Guidelines will be submitted to the Secretary of State and added to the California Code of Regulations (CCR). The amendments will go into effect immediately upon their submission by the OAL to the Secretary of State if the CNRA had good cause to request immediate effectiveness of the new Guidelines. In no event will the amendments go into effect later than 120 days after their date of submission to the Secretary of State.
There are a number of significant changes to the CEQA Guidelines that will go into effect following OAL review.
New Transportation Impacts Analysis
The amendment that has drawn the most attention is the shift from Level of Service (LOS) analysis of project transportation impacts to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis. LOS review is focused on a project’s contribution to the amount of vehicle delay, or traffic, in its surrounding area. The new CCR § 15064.3 states that vehicle delay will no longer be considered a significant environmental impact for projects that are not roadway expansion projects. Instead, transportation analysis must study the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. The motivation behind this change is to encourage greenhouse gas reduction and promote dense infill development.
The CNRA made an important change to the VMT amendment originally proposed by the Office of Planning and Research (OPR). The CNRA clarified that projects which decrease VMT compared to existing conditions or are located within half a mile of public transit receive a rebuttable presumption of producing a less than significant transportation impact. Ideally, this presumption will make review of infill projects in urban environments easier. Lead agencies will not be required to adopt the VMT methodology for reviewing traffic impacts until July 1, 2020, but agencies may choose to adopt the new paradigm immediately.
Renewed Focus on Energy Impacts
The new CCR § 15126.2(b) regards wasteful or inefficient energy usage as a significant environmental impact requiring mitigation. Analysis of a project’s energy use now includes energy used during the project’s construction as well as transportation-related energy consumption. While new construction is required to abide by energy efficiency standards included in the building codes, building code compliance will not necessarily be sufficient to prevent a project from being found to have significant energy impacts.
The renewed focus on a project’s energy impacts is demonstrated by the inclusion of energy impacts as a new section in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. Appendix G is a sample checklist form used by many lead agencies to conduct initial studies of a project’s potential significant environmental impacts. Lead agencies which use Appendix G will now consider energy impacts more explicitly during the initial study of a project.
Wildfire Impacts
Wildfire impacts have also been added as a new topic in Appendix G. It is important to note that CCR § 15126.2(a) is being amended to clarify that CEQA analysis concerns a project’s impact on the environment, not the impact of the environment on a project. While wildfire analysis will not directly focus on the risk of wildfire to the project, it will address whether a project exacerbates the risk of a natural disaster by bringing new development to vulnerable areas.
City of Los Angeles • Department of City Planning Public Meeting January 30. 2019
The Los Angeles Department of City Planning is seeking your input regarding the implementation of the Warner Center 2035 Plan. The purpose of the meeting shall be to:
· Review the goals and objectives of the Warner Center 2035 Plan
· Learn about the progress made in implementing the plan
· Provide written feedback on development and public improvements
Click on the BLUE highlight to view official documents and reports. Public Notice
CF 18-0467 AT CITY COUNCIL 01/16/2019
HEALTH, EDUCATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS COMMITTEE REPORT relative to the proposed reforms to the Neighborhood Council (NC) System.
Recommendations for Council action, as initiated by Motion (Ryu – Blumenfield – et al.):
INSTRUCT the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE) to:
Begin phasing out the use of the term EmpowerLA in any and all print and/or online messaging and branding, and report back to the Health, Education and Neighborhood Councils (HENC) Committee in 120 days with a status update and methods to more cohesively brand the NC System.
Develop formal rules, guidelines and a process for NC selections, including minimum requirements for outreach and allowable seat criteria, and report back to the HENC Committee in 120 days with a strategy and timeline for implementation.
Implement a system-wide minimum voting age and board member age of 16 years, with the exception of up to one youth seat per NC in which the minimum age to vote or hold the seat can be as low as 14 years old.
Develop an ongoing compendium of best practices for community engagement, policy making, legislative processes and financial management, among others, generated in collaboration with the NC, and develop a working how to manual to be periodically disseminated to NC’s, and report back to the HENC Committee with a status update in 120 days.
Develop a departmental points of contact list for all City departments, bureaus or agencies, including but not limited to the Departments of Aging; Animal Services; Cannabis Regulation; Bureau of Contract Administration; Disability; Economic and Workforce Development; Emergency Management; Office of Finance; Los Angeles Fire Department; Housing and Community Investment; City Planning; Los Angeles Police Department; Port of LA; Recreation and Parks; Transportation; Water and Power; Los Angeles World Airports; the Zoo and City sanctioned Business Improvement Districts, with the assistance of the aforementioned entities, and share the contact lists with the entire board of the NC, facilitate trainings for departmental points of contact on best practices for assisting NC’s, and coordinate with NC’s to appoint designated points of contact between the NC membership and each department, creating a single, responsible point of communication flowing in both directions. If no NC contact is appointed, the NC President or Chair shall be the default contact.
INSTRUCT the DONE, with the assistance of the City Clerk, to report back to the HENC Committee in 120 days with suggestions on how to deliver demographic and neighborhood data to NC’s that would point out areas where current seat allocations, when compared to the data, may not be equitable and provide written suggestions for ways each NC could amend their bylaws to create a more equitable allocation of seats if the data shows potential inequities.
INSTRUCT the DONE, with the assistance of the City Attorney, to report back on establishing rules and guidelines stipulating that after each decennial census, NC’s will evaluate any seats tied to residency and allocate those seats proportionally based on population.
INSTRUCT the DONE and the Department of City Planning to design and implement a mandatory planning and land use management training, required of both current and future Chairs and Vice Chairs of the NC planning and land use committees, and report back to the HENC Committee in 120 days with a status update on the roll out of the training.
INSTRUCT the DONE, with the assistance of the Department of General Services, to assist NC’s with accessing shared space in City facilities, as envisioned in Council file No. 16-0298, and report back to the HENC Committee in 120 days with a status update on the implementation of the program and a process to notify the NC’s.
INSTRUCT the City Clerk and the DONE to implement a process by May 1, 2019 for NC’s to roll over a non-cumulative maximum of $10,000 in any given fiscal year.
INSTRUCT the City Clerk, with the assistance of the DONE, to report back to the HENC Committee in 120 days on the feasibility of holding all NC elections on the same day in order to provide for uniform Citywide outreach and advertising and increase voter turnout.
REQUEST the City Attorney, with the assistance of the DONE and City Clerk to prepare and present an Ordinance by January 14, 2019 to amend the Los Angeles Administrative Code to define community interest stakeholder as any individual who lives, works, or owns real property in the neighborhood and also to those who participate in, or are a member of a community organization, defined as a named entity, which has a physical street address within the boundaries of the NC for not less than one year prior to the NC election or selection which performs verifiable ongoing activities and operations that confers some benefit on the community. This may include but is not limited to, chambers of commerce, houses of worship or other faith-based organizations, educational institutions, non-profit organizations or other such community based organizations. NC’s may and are encouraged to expand this definition by amending their bylaws to include other defined groups of stakeholders that conform to the above definitions.
Fiscal Impact Statement: Neither the City Administrative Officer nor the Chief Legislative Analyst has completed a financial analysis of this report.
Community Impact Statement: Yes.
For:
Empowerment Congress North Area Neighborhood Council
Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council
Palms Neighborhood Council
Arroyo Seco Neighborhood Council
Los Feliz Neighborhood Council
Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council
PICO Neighborhood Council
Greater Echo Park Elysian Neighborhood Council
Hollywood Hills West Neighborhood Council
Greater Toluca Lake Neighborhood Council
East Hollywood Neighborhood Council
Van Nuys Neighborhood Council
Del Rey Neighborhood Council
For if Amended:
Encino Neighborhood Council
Greater Valley Glen Neighborhood Council
Central Hollywood Neighborhood Council
Woodland Hills-Warner Center Neighborhood Council
Granada Hills North Neighborhood Council
Silver Lake Neighborhood Council
Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council
Lake Balboa Neighborhood Council
Zapata-King Neighborhood Council
Greater Valley Glen Neighborhood Council
Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council
Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council
Historic Highland Park Neighborhood Council
Atwater Village Neighborhood Council
Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council
Westside Neighborhood Council
NoHo Neighborhood Council
Historic Cultural Neighborhood Council
Against:
Hollywood Hills West Neighborhood Council
Neutral:
Wilshire Center Koreatown Neighborhood Council
Click on the BLUE highlight to view official documents and reports.
Refer to CF 18-0467 for prior to 2019 entries
| 18-1225 Office of Councilmember for the Twelfth District. | ||||
| CD 12 | CONSIDERATION OF MOTION (WESSON – MARTINEZ, ET AL) relative to the appointment of Greig Smith to fill the vacancy in the Office of Councilmember for the Twelfth District. (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.) |
|||
| 16-1468 | Accessory Dwelling Units in accordance with State Law. | |
| To Planning and Land Use Management Committee Los Angeles City Planning Commission report, dated January 3, 2019, relative to a proposed Ordinance amending the Los Angeles Municipal Code for the purpose of regulating Accessory Dwelling Units in accordance with State Law. |
||