| 21-1200-S26 | South Valley Area Planning Commission | |
| To Planning and Land Use Management Committee Mayor report, dated September 20, 2021, relative to the appointment of Lisa Karadjian to the South Valley Area Planning Commission for the term ending June 30, 2026. Ms. Karadjian will fill the vacancy created by Harout “Harry” Sermerdjian, who withdrew from consideration |
||
| 21-1045 | Implement SB 9 (Atkins) | |
| To Planning and Land Use Management Committee Motion (Martinez – Cedillo) relative to instructing the Department of City Planning and Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety to report on how the City can implement SB 9 (Atkins), with specific provisions for affordable housing and community land trusts. |
||
In response to a motion by the City Council (Council File No. 17-1071), Los Angeles City Planning is preparing an amendment to the Ventura-Cahuenga Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan (Specific Plan). The amendment’s goal is to modernize regulations and speed up the project review process in order to support small businesses along the Valley’s premier commercial corridor. It aims to ensure that Ventura Boulevard will remain a vibrant destination for future generations of Angelenos and an anchor for independent businesses in the San Fernando Valley.
Read Public Notice
Read Newsletter
Dear Angelenos:
This month, the City Planning Commission recommended a new proposed Community Plan for Downtown to the City Council. This plan has been a long time coming: it is the first downtown update since the early 2000s, and represents a whole new direction for the urban core. The Commission’s vote advances the Downtown Community Plan and its housing- and job-creating policies one step closer to adoption.
Between now and 2040, Downtown is projected to accommodate 175,000 new residents and add 100,000 jobs. In other words, 20% of the City’s projected growth will take place in just 1% of its land area. Our Downtown Community Plan proposes to meet the community’s needs by nearly doubling the area where housing is permitted in LA’s urban core and expanding the range of housing types allowed. It would also establish a Community Benefits Program to incentivize the construction of affordable housing Downtown, plus built-in open space and community facilities like childcare centers, schools, and libraries for all Angelenos.
This plan is the result of extensive engagement with Downtown’s residents and businesses. We worked closely with Downtown stakeholders, conducting outreach in five languages (English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Japanese) and collecting input from more than 40 community organizations. It reflects the priorities of those who live and work in the heart of one of the world’s most exciting and dynamic cities.
Together, we are Planning4LA.
Sincerely,
Vince Bertoni,
Director of Planning
| 09-0969-S3 | Los Angeles Municipal Code to update fees for applications and appeals for planning approvals | |
| To Planning and Land Use Management Committee City Attorney report R21-0273, dated September 16, 2021, relative to a draft Ordinance amending the Los Angeles Municipal Code to update fees for applications and appeals for planning approvals. |
||
| 4-1635-S11 | City Home-Sharing Registration when criminal activity is found | |
| To Planning and Land Use Management Committee Motion (Koretz – et al. – Krekorian) relative to instructing the Department of City Planning, with the assistance of the City Attorney and Los Angeles Police Department, to report on the feasibility of amending Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 12.22 A 32, to allow for the immediate suspension of a City Home-Sharing Registration when criminal activity is found to have taken place at a residence while being used as a short-term rental. |
||
| 19-0742 | Definition of Private Detention Center. | |
| To Planning and Land Use Management Committee Department of City Planning report, dated September 8, 2021, relative to the definition of Private Detention Center. |
||
CF 19-0742 UPDATE 11/19/2021 November 30, 2021 PLUM Meeting cancelled
Negative Declaration and related California Environmental Quality Act findings, report from the Los Angeles City Planning Commission, and proposed Ordinance amending Section 12.03 and adding Section 11.5.15 to Chapter I of the Los Angeles Municipal Code to add two new definitions not enumerated in the Zoning Code for Private Detention Center and Community Detention Facility for Unaccompanied Minors; prohibit these uses in all zones Citywide, including any accessory uses or incidental activity to an allowed use; and, not allow any variance, exception, or deviation from the prohibition through any process or interpretation.
Applicant: City of Los Angeles
Case No. CPC-2020-5811-CA
Environmental No. ENV-2020-5812-ND
Fiscal Impact Statement: Yes Community Impact Statement: Yes.
For:
Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council
Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council
Click on the BLUE HIGHLIGHT to view official documents and reports:
Department of City Planning report, dated September 8, 2021, relative to the definition of Private Detention Center.
Department of City Planning report, dated August 24, 2021, relative to the definition of Private Detention Center.
City Attorney report R21-0235, dated July 22, 2021, relative to a draft Ordinance amending the Los Angeles Municipal Code to define and prohibit private detention centers and community detention facilities for unaccompanied minors.
AT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 03/23/2021
CONSIDERATION OF and ACTIONS RELATED TO A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, and COMMUNICATION FROM THE LOS ANGELES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION (LACPC) relative to amending Section 12.03 and adding Section 11.5.15 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) to add definitions of Private Detention Center and Community Detention Facility for Unaccompanied Minors to the Zoning Code, and to prohibit such uses in all zones Citywide.
Recommendations for Council action:
FIND, based on the whole of the administrative record, the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment; FIND, based on the whole of the administrative record, that the Project is not a “project” as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15378; FIND, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(b), after consideration of the whole of the administrative record, including the Negative Declaration, No. ENV-2020-5812-ND (“Negative Declaration”), and all comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment; FIND the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City; and, ADOPT the Negative Declaration.
ADOPT the Findings of the LACPC as the Findings of Council.
REQUEST the City Attorney to prepare and present an Ordinance amending Section 12.03 and adding Section 11.5.15 to Chapter I of the LAMC, to add two new definitions currently not enumerated in the Zoning Code for Private Detention Center and Community Detention Facility for Unaccompanied Minors, prohibit these uses in all zones Citywide, including any accessory uses or incidental activity to an allowed use; and, such provisions would not allow any variance, exception, or deviation from the prohibition through any process or interpretation.
Applicant: City of Los Angeles
Case No. CPC-2020-5811-CA
Environmental No. ENV-2020-5812-ND Fiscal Impact Statement: The LACPC reports that there is no General Fund impact as administrative costs are recovered through fees. Community Impact Statement: Yes.
For:
Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council
Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council
(Planning and Land Use Management Committee waived consideration of the above matter)
Los Angeles City Planning Commission report, dated December 15, 2020, relative to a proposed ordinance amending the Los Angeles Municipal Code to add two new definitions to the Zoning Code: Private Detention Center, and Community Detention Facility for Unaccompanied Minors; and prohibiting these uses in all zones citywide.
| 18-1246 | Implementation of the proposed vacation rentals ordinance. | |
| To Planning and Land Use Management Committee Department of City Planning report, dated August 31, 2021, relative to the implementation of the proposed vacation rentals ordinance. |
||
| 21-0002-S163 | Lower the threshold for passage of financing of public housing or infrastructure from two-thirds to 55 percent. | |
| To Rules, Elections, and Intergovernmental Relations Committee Resolution (Koretz – Martinez) relative to including in the City’s 2021-22 State Legislative Program its position on ACA 1, which would lower the threshold for passage of financing of public housing or infrastructure from two-thirds to 55 percent. |
||
| 21-0002-S165 | Repeal Article 34 of the California State constitution, removing a requirement that public housing projects be approved by voters. | |
| To Rules, Elections, and Intergovernmental Relations Committee Resolution (Koretz – Harris-Dawson) relative to including in the City’s 2021-22 State Legislative Program its position on SCA 2, which would repeal Article 34 of the California State constitution, removing a requirement that public housing projects be approved by voters. |
||
Read what four South Bay Communities did (December 22, 2021)
The Los Angeles City Council this morning passed two motions submitted by Council District 5 representative Paul Koretz officially opposing state-level housing bills SB 9 and SB 10. As we’ve previously reported, the bills aim to increase housing production by allowing the construction of multi-family housing in areas currently zoned for lower-density use. (SB 9 would allow construction of two units on any current single-family lot, as well as the ADU and Junior ADU currently allowed. It would also allow the splitting of current single-family lots, both developable with up to two units and ADUs, which could result in as many as six units on a lot that currently holds just one home. And SB 10 would allow construction of up to 10 units per lot in some current single-family neighborhoods near transit- and job-rich areas.)
While density advocates have praised the proposals as necessary to create enough new units to address our current housing shortage, there has also been a lot of opposition from affordable housing advocates who argue that because the bills do not require the construction of any affordable units, they’re simply “trickle-down” policies that would be a gift to market-rate developers. Opponents also say the bills would drive up land values, accelerate gentrification (especially in low-income areas), and would make homeownership, and the economic benefit it provides, even less accessible to working class families than it is now.
In comments before the vote, City Council Member Nithya Raman said she does not support SB 9, but she does support SB 10 because it provides options to cities instead of mandates. That said, though, she also said Los Angeles needs to do much more to tackle our housing issues and “we haven’t been doing it.” She explained that a very large percentage of the city’s buildable land is locked down in single-family neighborhoods, especially in more resource-rich areas, which leaves too little developable land for the new housing we need, and forces most new construction into low income, lower resource areas. So more privileged districts like the one she represents, she said, “need to do more” to address our housing shortage…and allowing more multi-family development in resource-rich areas would be one way to do that. “I get a lot of calls from people who say ‘no,’” she said, “but I want to build a community of ‘yes.’”
In other council member comments, 
Mark Ridley-Thomas agreed with Raman that “we need to do more and we need to do it better” than we’ve been doing to address the housing question, but he said solutions also need to have “an eye to equity and sensitivity,” which these bills do not. Ridley-Thomas also decried the current polarization in many current housing discussions, and said that, in reality, “supporting this legislation doesn’t make you a YIMBY…and opposing it doesn’t make you a NIMBY ” — it’s much more complex than that. At the same time, however, he said that the current bills “are not the one-size-fits-all solution that we should embrace,” and that local control and local solutions – like the “right to housing” framework he introduced recently – would be much more useful.
Council Member Mike Bonin said he agrees with both Raman and Ridley-Thomas, and that he’s “getting really exhausted with the annual conversation we have about these bills from Sacramento.” Bonin said state legislators are trying to balance a “Rubik’s Cube” of interests when it comes to housing, but too often the proposed solutions originate with developers. Instead, said Bonin, “we should start with affordable housing advocates and build from there.” He said he agrees with Raman that SB 10 does give cities valuable options, but he says he still has reservations because of the bill’s opposition from environmental groups. Also, he said, while the racist history of much single-family zoning is undeniable, single-family home ownership has also, over the decades, provided working class families with a valuable way to build generational wealth. So he said he, too, favors local control and nuance in zoning…and “these two bills just ain’t it.”
Speaking after Bonin, Council Member Gil Cedillo turned out to be the lone voice firmly in support of both SB 9 and SB 10. Cedillo said he agrees that the bills are not perfect but that we need to start making some changes, and continuing to argue for the status quo is both unacceptable and will “maintain apartheid in the city.” “We can’t allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good,” he said.
But the discussion quickly veered back to opposition, as Council Member Paul Krekorian decried the bills as the kind of “trickle-down” legislation that originated with Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. “It was an absurd notion when Ronald Regan proposed it,” said Krekorian, and “it is an absurd proposition now.” He agreed with several other Council Members who said our city already has many of the tools it needs to fix our housing problems, and that we need to use those tools to find “solutions not mandates.” And both he and several others suggested that the city be more proactive at the state level and actually start suggesting new legislation that would focus more on affordable housing and allowing cities to craft their own solutions for their own neighborhoods.
Finally, Koretz, who introduced the motions being considered, said SB 9 and 10 do nothing to help our need for affordable housing, and will only enrich developers who will be allowed to build more and more market rate housing. He acknowledged that it’s easy to argue that the status quo isn’t working, but said that’s no reason to vote for bills that will only make things worse by focusing on the construction of luxury housing, and developments that will significantly reduce our urban tree canopy (which is found largely in low density neighborhoods). The solution to our housing problems, he said, should start with the defeat of these bills…and then work on new bills that will be appropriate for Los Angeles.
Wrapping up the discussion, Council president Nury Martinez also spoke in favor of local control over housing solutions, saying the state legislature “has lost its credibility on land use in Los Angeles,” and that if it really wants to help, it should talk to individual cities instead of issuing top-down rules.
The final votes were 12-1 (with Cedillo the opposing vote) to support Koretz’s motion expressing opposition to SB 9, and 11-2 (with Cedillo and Raman the opposing votes) to support Koretz’ motion expressing opposition to SB 10.
| 21-0972 | Planning, with assistance from the Los Angeles Housing Department, to report with options for an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone | |
| To Planning and Land Use Management Committee Motion (Raman – Harris-Dawson – Martinez) relative to instructing the Department of City Planning, with assistance from the Los Angeles Housing Department, to report with options for an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone in the City of Los Angeles or an update to the City’s development incentive programs, to prioritize 100 percent affordable housing projects in high opportunity areas. |
||