Motion (Lee – Blumenfield) relative to instructing the Departments of City Planning, and Building and Safety, to report on the feasibility of creating an overlay zone and/or the use of other land use tools that would streamline the entitlement and permitting processes for bioscience-related uses within the Chatsworth-Northridge Industrial Core, Innov818 zone; and instruct the City Administrative Officer, Chief Legislative Analyst, and the Office of Finance to provide a comprehensive report to include: 1) the feasibility of temporarily increasing the gross receipts tax exemption threshold along with an economic and financial analysis of increasing the threshold; and 2) recommendations on implementing the higher exemption threshold, including cap amounts along with other incentives and/or tax exemptions that could be implemented to assist growth of the bioscience industry in the City of Los Angeles.
Click on the BLUE HIGHLIGHT to view official documents.
11/23/2022 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on November 29, 2022. Motion 10/25/2022
10/25/2022 Motion referred to Budget and Finance Committee; Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Motion 10/25/2022
CF 20-0844 AT CITY COUNCIL 11/25/2020 Adopted, (12); Absent: Cedillo, Rodriguez, Ryu (3)
PLANNING AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT and ORDINANCE FIRST CONSIDERATION relative to amending Section 98.0105 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) to clarify the right of entry for Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) inspectors to conduct inspections.
Recommendation for Council action, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MAYOR:
PRESENT and ADOPT the accompanying ORDINANCE dated August 26, 2020 amending Section 98.0105 of the LAMC to clarify the right of entry for LADBS inspectors to conduct inspections.
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.
12/03/2020 Council action final.
12/03/2020 Ordinance posted/published. Ordinance effective date: January 4, 2021.
12/01/2020 Mayor transmitted Council File to City Clerk.
11/25/2020 City Clerk transmitted Council File to Mayor. Last day for Mayor to act is 12/07/2020.
11/25/2020 Council adopted item forthwith.
11/20/2020 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on November 25, 2020. Report from City Attorney (08/27/2020),
10/29/2020 Planning and Land Use Management Committee approved item(s). Report from City Attorney (08/27/2020), Attachment to Report dated 08/27/2020 – Draft Ordinance (08/27/2020)
10/23/2020 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on October 29, 2020. Report from City Attorney (08/27/2020)
Attachment to Report dated 08/27/2020 – Draft Ordinance (08/27/2020)
08/27/2020 City Attorney document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Report from City Attorney (08/27/2020)
Attachment to Report dated 08/27/2020 – Draft Ordinance (08/27/2020)
08/27/2020 Document(s) submitted by City Attorney, as follows: Report from Planning and Land Use Management Committee (July 28, 2020)
City Attorney report 20-0252, dated August 27, 2020, relative to a draft Ordinance amending the Los Angeles Municipal Code to clarify the right of entry for the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety inspectors to conduct inspections.
08/12/2020 Council action final.
08/12/2020 Council adopted item forthwith. Report from Planning and Land Use Management Committee (July 28, 2020)
08/07/2020 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on August 12, 2020. Motion (June 24, 2020),
Report from Planning and Land Use Management Committee (July 28, 2020)
07/28/2020 Planning and Land Use Management Committee approved item(s) . Motion (June 24, 2020)
07/24/2020 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on July 28, 2020. Motion (June 24, 2020)
06/24/2020 Motion document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Motion (June 24, 2020)
CF 20-1175 AT CITY COUNCIL 11/24/2020 Adopted, (13); Absent: Cedillo, Ryu (2)
PLANNING AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT relative to notifying property owners and financial institutions when an Order to Abate Vacant Structure for violations of Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) 91.8904 et seq is issued, and ACE citations issuance for violations of LAMC 91.8904 et seq.
Recommendations for Council action, pursuant to Motion (Buscaino – Koretz – O’Farrell):
REQUEST the City Attorney, with the assistance of the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS), to notify property owners and financial institutions that carry a mortgage on the property via written correspondence when LADBS issues an Order to Abate Vacant Structure for violations of LAMC 91.8904 et seq, and warn they could be subject to fines, criminal prosecution, and recovery of city abatements costs through a lien against the property, if corrective action is not taken prior to the compliance date on a LADBS Order.
REQUEST the City Attorney and the LADBS, to report with recommendations and the necessary resources to begin issuing ACE citations for violations of LAMC 91.8904 et seq, that are not corrected prior to the Compliance Date on a LADBS Order.
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
Click on the BLUE highlight to view official documents and reports.
11/24/2020 Council adopted item forthwith.
11/20/2020 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on November 24, 2020.
11/05/2020 Planning and Land Use Management Committee approved item(s) . Motion (September 15, 2020)
11/05/2020 Community Impact Statement submitted by Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council. Refer to CF 20-1175
10/30/2020 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on November 5, 2020. Motion (September 15, 2020)
9/15/2020 Motion document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Motion (September 15, 2020)
Read: FUNDING FORM PROCEDURES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROJECTS, August 10, 2020
To address the shortage of affordable housing in the City of Los Angeles, the Department of City Planning, the Department of Building and Safety (LADBS), the Los Angeles Housing & Community Investment Department (HCIDLA), and other City Departments work together to develop and prioritize affordable housing projects per the Mayor’s Executive Directive 131 (ED 13). The City is dedicated to providing development services to streamline the permitting and land use entitlement process for all affordable housing developments. Under the procedures outlined in this memo, the coordinated review of project plans by LADBS, City Planning, and HCIDLA creates a comprehensive and timely conformance review of affordable housing projects. This is an effort to identify potential issues early in the design process, with the goal of avoiding costly “late hits,” such as the need to seek approval of discretionary entitlements.
Department of City Planning report and supplemental report relative to an analysis of the proposed State Senate Bill 50, including the impacts to the City’s neighborhood development patterns and urban form as well as existing City policies, plans and procedures, and the potential relationship to state and local goals surrounding housing affordability, sustainability and equity.
Fiscal Impact Statement: No.
Community Impact Statement: None submitted.
Click on the BLUE Highlight to view official documents and reports.
05/14/2019 Planning and Land Use Management Committee continued item to/for future meeting.
05/10/2019 Department of City Planning document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Report from Department of City Planning (May 9, 2019)
05/09/2019 Document(s) submitted by Department of City Planning, as follows: Report from Department of City Planning (May 9, 2019)
Department of City Planning report, dated May 9, 2019, relative to a summary of the amendments made to SB 50 (Weiner), as well as the impacts the changes are likely to have on the department’s initial report dated April 23, 2019.
04/24/2019 Department of City Planning document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Report from Department of City Planning (April 23, 2019)
04/23/2019 Document(s) submitted by Department of City Planning, as follows:
Department of City Planning report, dated April 23, 2019, relative to analysis regarding proposed State Senate Bill 50 (Weiner) and its potential effects on zoning and land use regulations in the City. Report from Department of City Planning (April 23, 2019)
04/17/2019 Council action final.
04/16/2019 Council adopted item, subject to reconsideration, pursuant to Council Rule 51.
04/15/2019 Community Impact Statement submitted by Sherman Oaks NC. Refer to CF 18-1226)
04/13/2019 Community Impact Statement submitted by Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Refer to CF 18-1226)
04/11/2019 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on April 16, 2019 . Report from Planning and Land Use Management Committee (March 5, 2019), Motion (December 12, 2018)
04/11/2019 Community Impact Statement submitted by Sunland-Tujunga Neighborhood Council. Refer to CF 18-1226)
03/05/2019 Community Impact Statement submitted by Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council. Refer to CF 18-1226)
03/05/2019 Planning and Land Use Management Committee approved item(s) . Motion (December 12, 2018)
03/01/2019 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on March 5, 2019. Motion (December 12, 2018)
12/12/2018 Motion document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Motion (December 12, 2018)
PLANNING AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT relative to a study of the impacts of independent retail uses on the social fabric of a community.
Recommendations for Council action, pursuant to Motion (Bonin – Krekorian):
INSTRUCT the Department of City Planning (DCP) to study the impacts of independent retail uses on the social fabric of a community and report on the levels of economic, social, and cultural activity such uses support, including the number of jobs per square foot and the diversity of residents.
INSTRUCT the DCP, in consultation with the City Attorney, to report on the feasibility of using zoning and other land use planning tools to encourage the siting of independent retail uses on Ocean Front Walk in the Venice community.
Fiscal Impact Statement: 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.
04/17/2019 Council adopted item forthwith. Report from PLUM (April 2, 2019)
04/12/2019 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on April 17, 2019. Report from Planning and Land Use Management Committee. (April 2, 2019), Motion (November 27, 2018)
04/02/2019 Planning and Land Use Management Committee approved item(s).
03/29/2019 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on April 2, 2019. Motion (November 27, 2018)
11/27/2018 Motion document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Motion (November 27, 2018)
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
A market at Les Grands Voisins in Paris, formerly the Saint-Vincent-de-Paul hospital. Photograph: –
Hospitals are rarely places of cheer and creativity, but the former Saint-Vincent-de-Paul hospital in Paris’s 14th district is one of the most exciting places on the left bank. Former ambulance bays and car parks now house allotments, a boules court, a makeshift football pitch and an urban campsite, and up to 1,000 visitors a day come to browse its market, eat at its cafes or catch a free live performance.
Renamed Les Grands Voisins, or The Great Neighbours, the site is a magnet for Parisians and tourists alike, its former treatment rooms, A&E building and wards now a hub of social and commercial enterprise. Alongside a hostel providing 600 beds for the homeless are artisan studios, pop-up shops and startups.
“It’s like a village, an inclusive space with social areas and job opportunities where different people can interact,” says William Dufourcq, director of Aurore, the charity that runs the homeless shelter. “We were overwhelmed with its success.”
Closed since 2011, the hospital is slated for redevelopment into a new neighbourhood with eco credentials, private and social housing, shops, commercial and public facilities and green space. Planning, clearance and construction on such a large scale takes time and, rather than leave the 3.4-hectare site empty for years, the developer, Paris Batignolles Aménagement, opened it to local organisations rent-free. The lease was scheduled to end this year, but has been extended until mid-2020 while construction begins on other parts of the site.
Parisians enjoy the sunshine at Les Grands Voisins
Les Grands Voisins is an example of a “meanwhile space”: a disused site temporarily leased or loaned by developers or the public sector to local community groups, arts organisations, start-ups and charities. Calls for making use of such spaces in other crowded urban centres are getting louder. A report published in October by the thinktank Centre for London highlights both the need for and positive possibilities of utilising empty urban sites and how this could transform the landscape of cities around the globe.
“The aim was to show the value ‘meanwhile use’ can add in cities where there is pressure on space,” says Nicolas Bosetti, one of the report researchers. He says public and private operators in Paris are more ambitious than those in London in exploring the use of disused buildings from metro stations to former nightclubs for short-term use as charity and cultural venues.
Other meanwhile spaces in Paris include Exelmans, a former police residence repurposed as a shelter for the homeless and refugees, run by Aurore on a two-year lease, and the Parmentier electricity substation, where the art collective La Générale has operated since 2008.
The substation, which is soon to be redeveloped, was included in Paris Reinvented, an initiative from the mayor’s office currently in its second year. Disused public sites are put up for auction to developers and architects who compete with plans for their redevelopment. “Les Grands Voisins showed how something like this can change an area and help plan future urban projects,” says Marion Waller, adviser to Paris’s deputy mayor for urban planning. “We didn’t want to sell buildings to the highest bidder but to the most innovative solution.”
The idea of loaning empty urban spaces to worthwhile causes is gaining ground elsewhere, with thriving projects in the Danish city of Aarhus and Philadelphia in the US, where it’s called “temporary urbanism”. However, in space-squeezed London, urban sites can remain empty for years, mainly because they have no obvious commercial potential or are waiting for permission to be developed.
The Centre for London found that an estimated 24,400 commercial properties in London are currently empty, with around half having been unused for more than two years. The total available vacant space, 6.5m sq metres, is equivalent to 27 times the footprint of Westfield London, Europe’s largest shopping centre. The majority of such places are owned by local authorities and developers. “Only one of 33 London borough councils publishes a database of vacant property and only one council keeps a list of groups interested in vacant spaces,” says Bosetti.
Bosetti thinks property owners could do more to match available sites with needy groups but says local authorities are afraid of squatters or allowing in destructive elements. “One of the main barriers to meanwhile use is the perception that hoarding a site is safer,” he says. “Often the opposite is true. Opening a site to a community and encouraging interaction with residents usually sees a reduction in antisocial activity.”
Squatting and vandalism are more likely if a building remains empty for too long, so one benefit of temporary tenants is the reduction in security costs. Another, according to Simon Hesketh, director of regeneration with the British developer U+I, is the connection a meanwhile space can forge with the community prior to redevelopment.
“We’ll try to organise events in temporary spaces for the widest cross-section of residents, to get their views and ask what they’d like and what works,” he says. “Not just to smooth the planning process, but because we can learn what we might include in our proposals.”
U+I, one of the sponsors of the Centre for London report, has already leased several sites awaiting redevelopment to small businesses and community organisations for temporary use. Hesketh acknowledges property owners worry about reclaiming the space when the tenancy ends but says everyone involved needs to be clear that the situation is temporary.
The Migration Museum in Lambeth is currently occupying part of the former engine workshop for the London fire service. “Having this site has been totally transformative for us,” says director Sophie Henderson. “It has allowed us to prove the concept of what we’re doing, while we look for a permanent home.”
The building is slated for redevelopment by U+I into a mixed-use scheme but is still going through the planning process. Until construction starts, the museum is one of several thriving community organisations granted the option to use it. “It’s been a tremendous gift,” says Henderson. “We couldn’t possibly have done what we have in the past year without it.”
New data shows that the majority of Americans describe their neighborhoods as suburban. Yet we still lack an official government definition of suburban areas.
The geography of America is shifting. Population and job growth are happening faster in suburbs than in urban neighborhoods. At the same time, crowded urban neighborhoods are getting richer and their housing is getting more expensive. There are clear statistical differences among Americans living in urban, suburban, and rural parts of America when it comes to voting patterns, attitudes on social issues, labor and economic outcomes, and health outcomes. The distinction between urban and rural matters to the federal government, and there is an abundance of official federal definitions of urban and rural. And yet among these definitions, none includes a third category: suburban.
The lack of an official federal definition of suburban means that government data are not reported separately for suburban areas. That makes it hard to measure the reach and impact of federal programs and to produce vital statistics about Americans and their communities.
Much of America looks suburban, with neighborhoods of single-family homes connected by roads to retail centers and low-rise office buildings. For the first time, government data confirm this. According to the newly released 2017 American Housing Survey (of nearly 76,000 households nationwide), about 52 percent of people in the United States describe their neighborhood as suburban, while about 27 percent describe their neighborhood as urban, and 21 percent as rural.
These results echo those from a 2015 survey in which one of us (Jed Kolko) and colleagues at Trulia asked more than 2,000 people around the nation the same question. We found then that 53 percent of survey respondents described their neighborhood as suburban, 26 percent as urban, and 21 percent as rural.
Because there is no official definition of “suburban,” asking people to describe their neighborhood is the first step in formalizing a definition. Kolko showed that household density and other neighborhood characteristics are strongly associated with how people describe their neighborhoods. Others have used those density cutoffs in geographic analyses, including of the midterm elections.
Official geographic definitions should catch up with how Americans describe their neighborhoods. These definitions do a good job at distinguishing rural neighborhoods from the overwhelmingly non-rural majority of the population, but fare poorly at differentiating urban from suburban neighborhoods.
Finding the suburban in urban data
We wondered: Do existing government definitions of urbanization reveal that more than half of Americans live in the suburbs? We compare each AHS respondent’s answer to the neighborhood question with how their address is classified by two main federal definitions of urbanization: the Census Bureau’s Urban Areas and the Office of Management and Budget’s Core-Based Statistical Areas, which include Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Micropolitan Statistical Areas.
We draw two conclusions from these results pertaining to Urban Areas. First, the good news: if Urban Areas are understood to mean urban and suburban neighborhoods, they do well at distinguishing rural neighborhoods from the urban-plus-suburban majority of America. Our analysis reveals that over 95 percent of households living in Urbanized Areas (that is, Urban Areas with more than 50,000 people) consider their neighborhood to be either urban or suburban, while 79 percent of households living in Census Rural Areas (any area outside of an Urbanized Area or Urban Cluster) consider their neighborhood to be rural.
But here’s the hitch: Urbanized Areas, as currently defined, are mostly suburban. Nearly twice as many households in Urbanized Areas describe their neighborhood as suburban (63 percent) compared to urban (32 percent). Also, residents of Urban Clusters—Urban Areas with fewer than 50,000 people—are almost as likely to describe their neighborhood as rural as they are urban.
How respondents described their neighborhood, by 2010 Urban Area category (Census Bureau)
“Urban”
“Suburban”
“Rural”*
Urbanized Area
33%
63%
5%
Urban Cluster
28%
45%
26%
Rural
5%
16%
79%
*Rows may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
The story is much the same when looking at Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Metropolitan Statistical Areas do well at distinguishing urban and suburban neighborhoods from rural neighborhoods, although not quite as well as Census Urban Areas do. Our analysis reveals that 86 percent of households living in the 382 Metropolitan Statistical Areas consider their neighborhood to be either urban or suburban, while 72 percent of households living outside of Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Areas consider their neighborhood to be rural.
Still, Metropolitan Statistical Areas, as currently defined, are predominantly suburban. Nearly twice as many households in Metropolitan Statistical Areas consider their neighborhood to be suburban (57 percent) versus urban (29 percent).
Even central cities—the most urban part of Metropolitan Statistical Areas—are quite suburban. The slight majority of households (51 percent) living within the central city of a Metropolitan Statistical Area describe their neighborhood as urban, while 47 percent describe their neighborhood as suburban. Outside of central cities, but within a Metropolitan Statistical Area, the majority (64 percent) describe their neighborhood as suburban.
How respondents described their neighborhood, by 2013 Core-Based Statistical Area category (OMB)
“Urban”
“Suburban”
“Rural”*
Metropolitan Statistical Area
29
57
14
Inside of central city
51
47
2
Outside of central city
14
64
22
Micropolitan Statistical Area
20
29
52
Outside of Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area
12
17
72
*Rows may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
So, looking at a national level, we find Census Urbanized Areas and OMB’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas are predominantly suburban, and even the central cities of Metropolitan Statistical Areas are quite suburban. It turns out these findings are generally true when we look individually at the 15 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the U.S. All of these are more suburban than urban. Some of the faster-growing areas, such as Atlanta, Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, and Phoenix, are more than 60 percent suburban.
Even though central cities are the most urban parts of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, many central-city residents consider their neighborhoods to be suburban. In five of the 15 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas, most residents describe their neighborhood as suburban. The central cities of the Riverside–San Bernardino and Phoenix Metropolitan Statistical Areas are the most suburban; these, like many other large Sunbelt cities, are lower-density than older cities in the Northeast and Midwest. The central cities of the New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and Boston Metropolitan Statistical Areas are more than two-thirds urban.
How respondents described their neighborhood in the 15 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (OMB)
Within the Metropolitan Statistical Area
Within just the central cities
“Urban”
“Suburban”
“Urban”
“Suburban”*
New York
47
49
83
18
Los Angeles
45
54
55
45
Chicago
34
61
74
26
Dallas/Fort Worth
30
61
46
54
Houston
29
63
51
49
Philadelphia
29
63
87
13
Washington, D.C.
30
62
69
32
Miami
35
64
47
53
Atlanta
20
69
66
34
Boston
34
57
70
30
San Francisco/Oakland
42
56
62
38
Phoenix
24
68
35
65
Riverside
14
74
22
78
Detroit
22
68
47
54
Seattle
29
63
55
45
*Due to disclosure rules, the suburban category also includes a small number of respondents who described their neighborhood as rural. Adding rural to suburban does not cause the suburban category to become the majority category in any of the 15 metropolitan areas.
We believe there are two conclusions to be drawn from our initial review of the 2017 AHS neighborhood question results. First, we feel there is enough evidence to promote the statement “America is majority suburban” from anecdote, or stylized fact, to fact. Second, existing federal definitions of urban and rural obscure the fact that most Americans describe their neighborhood as suburban, and this is true when looking nationally or at specific Metropolitan Statistical Areas or Census Urbanized Areas.
As producers and consumers of data products, it is clear to us that there is a demand for an official definition of suburban, so we think it is time to make the suburbs official. An official definition of suburban, distinct from urban and rural, could bring consistency to suburban measures of homeownership, transit usage, population growth, poverty, and many other topics. And we believe it is feasible.
With insights from the 2017 AHS neighborhood description data, the smallest geographic building blocks could be classified as suburban or urban using the process the Census Bureau already uses to delineate urban areas from rural America. We would at last be able to better understand the places where more than half of Americans live.
Amazon’s much-hyped expansion—the company will place 25,000 new jobs each in New York City and Arlington, Virginia—highlights how insular the tech industry can be when it comes to real estate. Tech companies based in the San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle, Boston, and New York City have taken up more than 25 million square feet of new office space outside of their primary markets over the past five years, according to a recent CBRE report. A good chunk of that is within those same four markets.
In conversations about tech capitals, Los Angeles rarely comes up, a distant second in its home state to the dominant Bay Area, which vacuumed up $26.5 billion in venture capital funding last year. But LA’s position in the tech ecosystem may be shifting.
While nobody believes that dynamic will change, LA has begun to come into its own. Homegrown successes, and the recent opening of large satellite offices by big players including Google, shows how tech is evolving here. The Bay Area isn’t suddenly moving to Silicon Beach. But it is benefiting from the changing nature of what we consider tech.
“We’re going through a renaissance at the moment because of the growth of entertainment and content,” says CBRE vice chairman Jeff Pion. “There’s a merging of tech and entertainment, and content is king at the moment. The potential from harnessing the existing entertainment workforce in LA immediately is incredible.”
Silicon Beach—a nickname for the areas of Santa Monica, Venice, Marina del Rey, Playa Vista and El Segundo where tech companies are congregating—is expanding, with companies such as Spotify setting up shop in the Arts District near downtown, and aerospace firms clustering in South Bay and Long Beach. The city’s tech employment increased 14.6 percent between 2016 and 2017, with many of the biggest names in technology—Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, and SpaceX—having opened or announced plan to open new offices. The 100 largest tech companies in the city saw a 24 percent increase in hiring last year, according to data from the Annenberg Foundation.
That growth has put pressure on the region’s housing stock and local office rents, which grew 15.8 percent between the second quarter of 2016 and 2018.
According to Eric Pakravan, a vice president with Venice-based venture capital firm Amplify, the city has always led the nation in out-of-town VC investment—a nice benefit of being an hour plane ride from Silicon Valley—but even as more investment pours into LA tech firms, VC firms are setting up shop in Southern California (the number doubled from 2016 to 2017). In 2016, LA and Orange County startups raised $5 billion collectively, and LA is on track to set a record for VC investment in 2018.
“Five years ago, a founder who wanted to keep their company in LA would get a lot of questions,” he says. “Today, it’s like, why do I need to be anywhere else?”
Netflix’s office in Hollywood. ,Shutterstock
Everything is tech, and tech is everywhere
As every industry embraces tech, a more economically diverse city like LA becomes more valuable. In the capital of remakes and reboots, old industries have become new again.
Unlike San Francisco, LA has a ready-made wellspring of talent in the entertainment and advertising industries—the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation estimates the region’s entertainment and content industries generate $55.9 billion annually, and a recent study said the city’s film and digital media industries generated 265,200 jobs—and a larger, more diverse population and economy. That’s led expanding entertainment giants, such as Netflix, Amazon, and YouTube, who collectively plan to spend billions on original content annually, to sign massive leases for new offices and production facilities. A study by research firm Beacon Economics predicts LA county will add 16,500 digital media and film-related jobs in the next three years.
LA’s employee base is unique, says CBRE’s Pion, with has no shortage of tech, design, and film talent coming from schools such as Parsons, USC, UCLA, and Chapman.
“It may not be equal to Silicon Valley, but the startup community down here is pretty robust,” says Pion.
With the expansion of direct-to-consumer marketing and brands, the ease of setting up e-commerce on improved sales platforms, and the tech industry’s push into a wider array of industries, Los Angeles has become much more desirable for startups. The city has birthed new consumer brands such as Honest Co. and Dollar Shave Club, which was bought by Unilever in 2016 for $1 billion. Last year, 23 percent of LA’s tech funding deals were for consumer products, and another 23 percent were for media.
These startups can cluster in neighborhoods already home to companies within their industries. Music and fashion companies may cluster around downtown and the Arts District, and the next generation of media companies are in West Hollywood.
“It’s not as much that it’s strictly tech, it’s these hybrid companies in very tangible industries,” Pion says. “An financial tech firm may take over a big office in Sherman Oaks to be near the traditional center of accounting. You’re now seeing venture-funded tech startups expand all over the city. There’s no one area that dominates.”
An old slide used by Stephen Basham of CoStar when discussing office leases. Some of the deals are rumored, and the square footage often includes production space.CoStar
Further south, in Long Beach and the South Bay, Elon Musk has tapped into Southern California’s aerospace heritage with SpaceX, a private space startup. The company recently received approval to build its Big Falcon Rocket at a 19-acre plot in the Port of Los Angeles, a development that has already supercharged South Bay real estate.
Along with Tesla and Hyperloop, which plans on opening a test tunnel in Hawthorne, Musk has helped generate another LA tech cluster. In addition to raising funds—SpaceX and Hyperloop raised $450 and $135 million last year, respectively—it’s already spurred on the construction of new offices and apartment complexes, and added more excitement to nearby redevelopment plans, such as the Port of San Pedro renovation.
According to CBRE’s Pion, the move south, to an area once dominated by defense contractors, is attracting aerospace and space companies, and, increasingly, other tech firms seeking space in a supply-constrained market.
Jesse Gundersheim covers the San Francisco office market for CoStar. He says a lot of the growth in LA is spillover effect, companies that would like to be near the Bay, but due to space and price constraints, simply can’t afford it. He finds companies that do move from the Bay Area tend to head to West Coast cities such as Austin, Denver, Portland, and Sacramento, where space is cheaper. And if they have the choice, he says, they’d rather pick LA than Austin due to the lifestyle benefits.
A former Snap office in Venice Beach from 2017.AFP/Getty Images
With those new companies and offices come more tech workers, who will continue to make an impact on local real estate. According to Stephanie Younger, who sells homes for Compass in Silicon Beach neighborhoods such as Venice, Playa Vista, and Marina del Rey, 65 percent of her buyers under contract are in the tech industry.
The number of techies and tech workers buying in Westside neighborhoods has driven up prices in an already-expensive area. While it hasn’t caused quite the same level of backlash as tech’s real estate takeover of San Francisco—the decentralized nature of LA, and the existing high prices, means the industry’s impact hasn’t been as concentrated—it has altered the homebuying market. For years, developers have been tearing down old bungalows on Venice side streets and replacing them with expensive, modernist boxes, or rehabbing with up-to-the-minute styles to appeal to 25- to 35-year-old buyers, says Younger. The growth of high, and higher-end, retail on Abbot-Kinney and Rose Avenue speak to the rising cost of living in Venice.
“Retail is probably one of the biggest indicators of what’s happened to this area,” she says.
The biggest catalyst in the emergence of Venice was the 2013 arrival of Snapchat, which decided to purchase an array of smaller spaces, including a beachfront bungalow, and gradually built a decentralized network of office spaces near the beach.
“Prior to Snapchat’s arrival, it wasn’t viewed as an office hub, it was a quirky beach town,” says Steve Basham, a senior market analyst at CoStar. “Over the last few years, it’s changed the character of the area, and there’s been lots of local resistance to the takeover. Snap [the parent company of Snapchat] took virtually all the available office space in Venice.”
In April, when Snap announced it was relocating much of its workforce, abandoning half its office space and moving workers into a traditional, centralized office in Santa Monica, it opened up 200,000 square feet of rental space — and a discussion of the future of the Venice office market.
More than six months later, it’s clear Venice isn’t going anywhere. Basham said nearly 40 new leases have been signed in the last half year, nearly double the pace of the previous three years. It’s expected that a vacuum of that size would lead to lots of new deals, but it also shows the premium new startups place on being located on the Westside.
“There’s so much opportunity to get into Venice right now,” says Michael Springer, another local analyst at Halton Pardee + Partners. “You can spend all day looking at new spaces.”
As the city’s tech scene grows, that decentralized nature is one of its biggest drawbacks. According to a Boston Consulting Group study released this spring that looks at LA’s potential, “Stars Aligning: How Southern California Could Be the Next Great Tech Ecosystem,” the city’s sprawl constricts growth opportunities, making it harder to create the critical mass of companies and employees typically required for successful innovation. The upcoming 2028 Olympics, which promises a region-wide transportation upgrade, as well as an increasing number of homegrown successes, can hopefully alleviate that problem and help build larger clusters of like-minded businesses.
Still, according to the report, Silicon Beach, where tech giants keep expanding their footprints, shows one vision of a tech-driven future economy. It may be why Venice is now attracting scores of smaller startups, says Springer. It makes sense if you follow the money; many of the city’s VC firms, including Amplify, are clustered near Santa Monica and Venice. There may be more than a few looking to capture some of the Snap magic.
Patrick Sisson’s wife works as a designer for Google. Any Curbed editorial covering Google, including this piece, is planned, reported, and edited without her involvement.
CF 18-0246 AT CITY COUNCIL 05/02/2018 Vote Action: Adopted, Vote Given: (10 – 0 – 5)
SATT Note: In the Senate’s Housing and Transportation Committee’s vote, the bill lost four votes to six. The only two yes votes from Democrats were from the bill’s authors. But for State Senator Scott Wiener, he stated the battle to increase California’s housing supply will continue. See article (April 18, 2018), Also refer to SB No. 828 Legislative Council’s Digest
PLANNING AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT relative to SB 827 (Weiner) pending in the State Legislative and City’s zoning and land regulatory process.
Recommendation for Council action, pursuant to Motion (Price – Huizar):
INSTRUCT the Department of City Planning, with the assistance of the City Attorney, to prepare a report with recommendations as it pertains to SB 827 (Weiner) pending in the State Legislature, and how it would affect the City’s zoning and land use regulatory process if it were enacted into law; and specifically, how it would impact any existing and pending updates to the Land Use Element and its 35 Community Plans; Community Plan Implementation Overlay Districts; the Transit Oriented Communities Affordable Housing Incentives Program; Transit Oriented Districts; Specific Plans; Design Review; Historic Preservation Overlay Districts and potential demolition impacts; parking regulations; height districts and their associated limitations; environmental review; single family and other residential zones Citywide, and any other land use regulatory controls.
Fiscal Impact Statement: Neither the City Administrative Officer nor Chief Legislative Analyst has completed a financial analysis of this report.
Community Impact Statement: Yes.
For: Greater Toluca Lake Neighborhood Council
.Click on the BLUE HIGHLIGHT to view official documents and reports.
05/04/2018 Council action final Mayor Concurrence (May 4,2018)
05/02/2018 Council adopted item, subject to reconsideration, pursuant to Council Rule 51. Report from PLM (April 17, 2018)
04/30/2018 Community Impact Statement submitted by Boyle Heights Neighborhood Council. Refer to CF 18-0246
04/28/2018 Community Impact Statement submitted by Boyle Heights Neighborhood Council. Refer to CF 18-0246
04/27/2018 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on May 2, 2018 . Report from PLM (April 17, 2018)
04/18/2018 Community Impact Statement submitted by Greater Toluca Lake Neighborhood Council. Refer to CF 18-0246
04/17/2018 Planning and Land Use Management Committee approved item(s) Motion (March 23, 2018)
04/13/2018 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on April 17, 2018. Motion (March 23, 2018)
03/23/2018 Motion document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Motion (March 23, 2018)
According to a new study by the National Forest Service, it’s not just the untamed reaches of the U.S. that we need to protect. Because city footprints are expanding at a rapid rate, we need to both plan and protect forests in urban areas, too.
The crux of the study is that U.S. urban footprints are going to almost double over the next 40 years, from 95.5 million acres of land in 2010 to 163 million acres of land in 2060. That would equate to a block of concrete the size of Montana if urban planners aren’t careful about protecting tree-filled green space. And so far, many aren’t: Over the past five years, urban green cover has declined while “impervious” cover (or surfaces that don’t absorb rainwater) have increased.
CF 18-0112 AT City Council Meeting Date: 03/06/2018 Vote Action: Adopted Vote Given: (15 – 0 – 0)
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT and RESOLUTION relative to proposed Opportunity Zones in the City of Los Angeles.
Recommendations for Council action, as initiated by Motion (Buscaino – Price), SUBJECT TO THE CONCURRENCE OF THE MAYOR:
ADOPT the accompanying RESOLUTION to include in the City’s 2017-18 State Legislative Program, SUPPORT for the inclusion of the list (Attachment 2 to the February 26, 2018 Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA) report, attached to the Council file), as amended, of low-income Los Angeles Census Tracts for the Opportunity Zone Program, attached to the Resolution and the Council file.
INSTRUCT the CLA to evaluate the new Federal Opportunity Zones and report with recommendations on how to establish zones in the City of Los Angeles with consideration of the Promise Zones, Clean Up Green Zones, and the Transformative Climate Communities where possible.
AMEND the list of Los Angeles Census Tracts as detailed in Attachment 2 of the February 26, 2018 CLA report, attached to the Council file and Resolution, to:
Delete Census Tract No. 06037980014
Add Census Tract No. 06037297110
Fiscal Impact Statement: The CLA reports that there is no General Fund impact at this time.
Community Impact Statement: None submitted. AMENDING MOTION 13A (O’FARRELL – MARTINEZ for CEDILLO)
Recommendation for Council action, SUBJECT TO THE CONCURRENCE OF THE MAYOR:
AMEND the Economic Development Committee report to instruct the Chief Legislative Analyst to review the Promise Zone Census Tracts in Council District 13 and Council District One omitted from the list, as well as additional commercial tracts in Hollywood, for eligibility and inclusion into the final list. AMENDING MOTION 13B (RODRIGUEZ – MARTINEZ)
Recommendation for Council action, SUBJECT TO THE CONCURRENCE OF THE MAYOR:
AMEND the Economic Development Committee report to include the following Council District Seven census tracts, that were inadvertently omitted, in the list of Primary low-income Los Angeles Census Tracts for the Opportunity Zone Program:
03/07/2018 Council action final. Mayor Concurrence with City Council (March 7, 2018)
03/07/2018 Mayor transmitted Council File to City Clerk.
03/06/2018 City Clerk transmitted file to Mayor. Last day for Mayor to act is March 16, 2018.
03/06/2018 Council adopted item forthwith. Amending Motion 13B (March 2, 2018), Amending Motion 13A (March 2, 2018), Report from Economic Development Committee (February 27, 2018)
03/02/2018 Council continued item to/for March 6, 2018 . Amending Motion 13B (March 2, 2018), Amending Motion 13A (March 2, 2018), Report from Economic Development Committee (February 27, 2018)
02/28/2018 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on March 2, 2018 . Submittal by CLA – Updated Opportunity Zone List and Resolution (February 28, 2018) , Report from Economic Development Committee (February 27, 2018) , Report from Chief Legislative Analyst (February 26, 2018)
02/27/2018 Economic Development Committee approved as amended . Report from Chief Legislative Analyst (February 26, 2018)
02/26/2018 Chief Legislative Analyst document(s) referred to Economic Development Committee. Report from Chief Legislative Analyst (February 26, 2018)
02/26/2018 Document(s) submitted by Chief Legislative Analyst, as follows: Report from Chief Legislative Analyst (February 26, 2018)
Chief Legislative Analyst report 18-02-0174, dated February 26, 2018, relative to the Federal Opportunity Zones in Los Angeles.
02/23/2018 Economic Development Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on February 27, 2018. Report from Chief Legislative Analyst (February 12, 2018), Motion (February 6, 2018)
02/13/2018 Economic Development Committee continued item to/for February 27, 2018 . Report from Chief Legislative Analyst (February 12, 2018), Motion (February 6, 2018)
02/13/2018 Chief Legislative Analyst document(s) referred to Economic Development Committee. Report from Chief Legislative Analyst (February 12, 2018)
02/12/2018 Document(s) submitted by Chief Legislative Analyst, as follows: Report from Chief Legislative Analyst (February 12, 2018)
Chief Legislative Analyst report 18-02-0110, dated February 12, 2018, relative to the Federal Opportunity Zones in Los Angeles.
02/09/2018 Economic Development Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on February 13, 2018. Motion (February 6, 2018)
02/06/2018 Motion document(s) referred to Economic Development Committee. Motion (February 6, 2018)
Motion (O’Farrell – Huizar) relative to instructing the Department of City Planning (DCP), in consultation with the City Attorney, to prepare a report on the feasibility of an ordinance that could enable the DCP to administratively renew Conditional Use Permits every five to 10 years, if business operators have been deemed good operators, as defined by the report; and, with the assistance of the Chief Legislative Analyst, on case studies of other municipal jurisdictions where set standards for permit renewals are being implemented and what criteria and terms of renewal are being implemented.
Community Impact Statement: None submitted.
Click on the BLUE HIGHLIGHT to view official documents and reports.
12/05/2017 Planning and Land Use Management Committee continued item to/for a date to be determined.
12/01/2017 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on December 5, 2017. City Planning Report (November 30, 2017)
11/30/2017 Department of City Planning document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee. City Planning Report (November 30, 2017)
11/30/2017 Document(s) submitted by Department of City Planning, as follows: City Planning Report (November 30, 2017)
Department of City Planning report, dated November 30, 2017, relative to a report regarding Open for Business Initiatives – Conditional Use Permit Renewals.
03/07/2017 Council adopted item, subject to reconsideration, pursuant to Council Rule 51. Report of City Planning and Management Committee (February 28, 2017)
03/03/2017 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on March 7, 2017 . Report of City Planning and Management Committee (February 28, 2017)
02/28/2017 Planning and Land Use Management Committee approved item(s) . Motion (June 22, 2016),
02/24/2017 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on February 28, 2017. Motion (June 22, 2016) 06/22/2016 Motion referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Motion (June 22, 2016)
CF 16-1054 At City Council Adopted, (12); Absent: Huizar, Krekorian (2)
Certification of Sufficiency / Building Moratorium / General Plan
10/19/2016 Council Action.
Council Action (October 19, 2016)
Communication from Mayor October 18, 2016
Final Ordinance No. 184534 (October 18, 2016)
Report from Rules, Elections, Intergovernmental Relations and Neighborhoods Committee (September 30, 2016)
Attachment to Report R16-0301 Attachment 2 Resolutions and Ordinance (September 21, 2106)
10/18/2016 Mayor transmitted file to City Clerk. Ordinance effective date: October 20, 2016.
10/13/2016 City Clerk transmitted file to Mayor. Last day for Mayor to act is October 24, 2016.
09/30/2016 Council adopted item, subject to reconsideration, pursuant to Council Rule 51. (September 30, 2016)
09/30/2016 Rules, Elections, Intergovernmental Relations and Neighborhoods Committee approved item(s) (Committee approved Attachment 2 of the City Attorney Report No. R16-0301).
09/22/2016 Document(s) submitted by City Attorney, as follows: Report from City Attorney (September 21, 2016)
City Attorney report R16-0302, dated September 21, 2016, relative to a request to discuss in Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) whether to initiate litigation regarding a certified initiative petition proposing implementation of a building moratorium.
09/21/2016 City Attorney document(s) referred to Rules, Elections, Intergovernmental Relations and Neighborhoods Committee.
09/21/2016 Document(s) submitted by City Attorney, as follows:
City Attorney report R16-0301, dated September 21, 2016, relative to draft ordinances and ballot resolutions regarding a certified initiative petition proposing a building moratorium, restrictions on general plan amendments, and required review of the general plan.
09/16/2016 City Clerk document(s) referred to Rules, Elections, Intergovernmental Relations and Neighborhoods Committee.
09/16/2016 Document(s) submitted by City Clerk, as follows: Report from City Clerk (September 16, 2016)
City Clerk report, dated September 16, 2016, relative to the certification of sufficiency of an Ordinance Initiative Petition: Building Moratorium; Restrictions on General Plan Amendments; Required Review of General Plan.
RULES, ELECTIONS, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, AND NEIGHBORHOODS COMMITEE REPORT, CERTIFICATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF INITIATIVE PETITION, RESOLUTIONS, and ORDINANCE FIRST CONSIDERATION relative to an initiative Petition proposing a building moratorium, restrictions on general plan amendments, and required review of the General Plan.
Recommendations for Council action, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MAYOR:
ADOPT the accompanying RESOLUTION provided in response to an initiative petition that an ordinance related to a building moratorium, restrictions on General Plan amendments, and required review of the General Plan, be submitted to the qualified electors of the City of Los Angeles at a Special Election to be called and consolidated with the City’s Primary Nominating Election held on March 7, 2017.
ADOPT the accompanying BALLOT TITLE RESOLUTION as follows:
BUILDING MORATORIUM; RESTRICTIONS ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS; REQUIRED REVIEW OF GENERAL PLAN. INITIATIVE ORDINANCE ___.
Shall an ordinance amending City laws related to the General Plan, including to: 1) impose a two-year moratorium on projects seeking General Plan amendments or zone or height-district changes resulting in more intense land use, an increase in density or height, or a loss of zoned open space, agricultural or industrial areas, with exceptions including for affordable housing projects and projects for which vested rights have accrued; 2) prohibit geographic amendments to the General Plan unless the affected area has significant social, economic or physical identity (defined as encompassing an entire community or district plan area, specific plan area, neighborhood council area or at least 15 acres); 3) require systematic, public review of the General Plan every five years; 4) prohibit project applicants from completing environmental impact reports for the City; 5) require the City make findings of General Plan consistency for planning amendments, project approvals and permit decisions; and 6) prohibit certain parking variances; be adopted?
PRESENT and ADOPT the accompanying ORDINANCE, dated September 21, 2016, calling a Special Election to be held on Tuesday, March 7, 2017 for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of the City of Los Angeles a certain initiative ordinance and consolidating this Special Election with the City’s Primary Nominating Election to be held on the same date.
Fiscal Impact Statement: The City Clerk reports that there is no fiscal impact for adopting Option A in this report. There is zero to minimal cost for adopting Option B in this report, assuming there will be a citywide race or a moderate number of Council-sponsored measures on that ballot. If, however, the City Council chooses to place this measure before the voters on a special election, the cost of that election is estimated to be $6 million.
The City of Los Angeles recognizes the value of early work experience and the
importance of fostering skill development, education, and economic success. Teens
and young adults are having a harder time finding work in Los Angeles compared to
other large metropolitan areas in the nation. Furthermore, young people often fall
behind during the summer, when school is out. In fact, 10 to 20 percent of students
returning to school in the fall return at a lower level than when the summer began.
The Summer Youth Employment Program has been a key component of the Youth
Workforce Development System for well over 30 years in the City of Los Angeles. In
the summer of 2005, Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa, the Los Angeles City Council, and
the Workforce Investment Board, in partnership with the Los Angeles Area Chamber of
Commerce, created the Hire LA’s Youth campaign to provide summer and year-round
employment opportunities for young people ages 14 to 24. Since the campaign’s
inception, over 85,000 youths and young adults have been employed by private and
public-sector employers. Helping young adults gain the skills needed to compete in the
workforce is one of the most powerful tools for expanding opportunities for City
residents, and summer jobs are a critical entry point on the continuum to long-term
employment success.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/62312431/Google_SpruceGoose_06.0.0.jpg)
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13436775/shutterstock_1213306570.jpg)
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13436775/shutterstock_1213306570.jpg)
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13436783/unnamed.png)
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13436783/unnamed.png)
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13436799/GettyImages_652272446.0.jpg)
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13436799/GettyImages_652272446.0.jpg)