RULES, ELECTIONS, AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE REPORT relative to the development of an Office of Anti-Corruption and Transparency (LA ACT).
Recommendations for Council action, pursuant to Motion (Ryu – Koretz):
INSTRUCT the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA) to report on best practices in other jurisdictions or agencies for the development, implementation, structure and operation of an independent auditors/investigators office, LA ACT, to provide focused, independent and comprehensive oversight and monitoring of land use, development and construction processes and approvals in the City.
INSTRUCT the CLA, with the assistance of the City Administrative Officer (CAO) and City Attorney, to report on the feasibility and with recommendations, including budget requirements and amendments to the Los Angeles Municipal Code, Los Angeles Administrative Code, and/or City Charter, for the creation of an independent auditors/investigators office, LA ACT, focused on land use, development and construction in the City, tasked with identifying and preventing fraud, corruption, and misconduct, and with the authority to conduct investigations of all government entities, the ability to issue subpoenas, examine all City documents, contracts, and monetary expenditures, compel testimony from City employees and elected officials, and recommend administrative discipline and policy improvements.
Fiscal Impact Statement: Neither the CAO nor the CLA has completed a financial analysis of this report.
Community Impact Statement: None submitted.
Click on the BLUE HIGHLIGHT to view official documents and reports.
09/16/2020 Community Impact Statement submitted by Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council. (Refer to CF 20-0608
08/07/2020 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on August 11, 2020. Report from Rules,, Elections, and Intergovernmental Committee (August 30, 2020) , Motion (May 19, 2020)
07/28/2020 Community Impact Statement submitted by Sherman Oaks NC. Communication from Public (See CF 20-0608 )
06/26/2020 Rules, Elections, and Intergovernmental Relations Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on June 30, 2020. Communication from Public (See CF 20-0608 ), Motion (May 19, 2020)
05/19/2020 Motion document(s) referred to Rules, Elections, and Intergovernmental Relations Committee. Motion (May 19, 2020)
(Several cities and states have imposed similar moratoriums) Reported March 18, 2020
President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that the Department of Housing and Urban Development will suspend all foreclosures and evictions through April in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
The moratorium would apply to mortgages insured by the department’s Federal Housing Administration, or around 8.1 million households, according to Politico. Trump called it “immediate relief to renters and homeowners.”
HUD, led by Ben Carson, also administers rental assistance to around 9 million low-income Americans.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency also announced it was directing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to suspend foreclosures and evictions for “at least 60 days,” according to HousingWire. The moratorium would apply to single-family properties with mortgages backed by either of the mortgage giants.
FHFA Director Mark Calabria told borrowers who are struggling to pay their mortgages to reach out to their services “as soon as possible,” according to Politico.
Several cities and states have adopted their own emergency eviction moratoriums with various terms.
The Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday moved to extend a moratorium put in place by Mayor Eric Garcetti. If adopted, residential and commercial tenants would have up to a year to pay back owed rent related to the pandemic.
(The measure would apply to both residential and commercial tenants) Reported March 18, 2020
The Los Angeles City Council wants to significantly lengthen the city’s moratorium on evictions that was put in place this week to soften the economic impact of the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic.
The City Council approved a motion on Tuesday to give both residential and commercial tenants up to 12 months to pay their landlords back rent related to the pandemic, according to Curbed LA. The pandemic has forced many people out of work.
The measure would extend Mayor Eric Garcetti’s six month moratorium for residential tenants and three month moratorium for commercial tenants.
It was one of several coronavirus-related motions the Council moved ahead on Tuesday. To come into effect, most require the city attorney to return with a legal measure to the council for a final vote.
Other cities have enacted similar moratoriums, including New York, San Antonio, and Seattle.
The co-author of the eviction extension, Councilmember Mike Bonin, also wants the city to waive a requirement in Garcetti’s order that requires tenants show proof they were impacted by the pandemic. The city attorney’s office and the housing department doubted whether that was legal, however.
Another motion the council moved forward would require lenders to “suspend mortgage foreclosures and mortgage late fees for the duration of the public health crisis,” according to Curbed.
On Sunday, Garcetti also ordered bars, restaurants, and other high-traffic businesses in the city to close to mitigate the spread of the virus. He also ordered the city to create a fund to extend interest-free loans to small businesses affected by the pandemic. [Curbed] — Dennis Lynch
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.
12/05/2019 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on January 14, 2020 . Report from PLUM (November 26, 2019) , Report from City Attorney (August 28, 2019) , Draft Ordinance (August 28, 2019)
11/26/2019 Planning and Land Use Management Committee approved item(s) .
11/22/2019 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on November 26, 2019.
08/30/2019 City Attorney document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Report from City Attorney (August 28, 2019) , Draft Ordinance (August 28, 2019)
AGENDA – Report from the City Attorney and Ordinance relative to 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: No.
Community Impact Statement: None submitted.
08/29/2019 Document(s) submitted by City Attorney, as follows: Report from City Attorney (August 28, 2019) , Draft Ordinance (August 28, 2019)
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”.
02/01/2019 Council action final.
01/30/2019 Council adopted item, subject to reconsideration, pursuant to Council Rule 51. Report from Planning and Land Use Management Committee (January 22, 2019)
01/25/2019 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on January 30, 2019 . Report from Planning and Land Use Management Committee (January 22, 2019)
01/22/2019 Planning and Land Use Management Committee approved as amended the Bureau of Contract Administration report and receive and file the Department of City Planning report. Report from Department of City Planning (June 8, 2019), Report from Public Works: Contract Administration (June 6, 2018)
01/18/2019 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on January 22, 2019. Report from Department of City Planning (June 8, 2019), Report from Public Works: Contract Administration (June 6, 2018)
10/26/2018 Corrected Referral per Council President to change referral to Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Report from Department of City Planning (June 8, 2019), Report from Public Works: Contract Administration (June 6, 2018)
06/15/2018 Department of City Planning document(s) referred to Rules, Elections, and Intergovernmental Relations Committee. Report from Department of City Planning (June 8, 2019)
06/13/2018 Public Works: Contract Administration document(s) referred to Rules, Elections, and Intergovernmental Relations Committee. Report from Public Works: Contract Administration (June 6, 2018)
06/12/2018 Document(s) submitted by Department of City Planning, as follows: Report from Department of City Planning (June 8, 2019)
Department of City Planning report, dated June 6, 2018, relative to the implementation of Measure JJJ (Affordable Housing and Labor Standards/General Plan Amendments/Zoning Changes/Certification of Sufficiency).
06/11/2018 Document(s) submitted by Public Works: Contract Administration, as follows:
Report from Public Works: Contract Administration (June 6, 2018)
Bureau of Contract Administration report, dated June 6, 2018, relative to implementation recommendations of Initiative Ordinance JJJ (Affordable Housing and Labor Standards) related to City planning.
08/08/2016 Rules, Elections, Intergovernmental Relations, and Neighborhoods Committee approved item(s) . Report from Rules, Elections, Intergovernmental Relations and Neighborhoods Committee (Ballot Author Designation) (August 8, 2016)
08/05/2016 Rules, Elections, Intergovernmental Relations, and Neighborhoods Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on August 8, 2016 (Ballot author designation).
06/30/2016 Mayor transmitted file to City Clerk. Ordinance effective date: July 7, 2016.
06/29/2016 City Clerk transmitted file to Mayor. Last day for Mayor to act is July 11, 2016.
06/28/2016 Council adopted item, subject to reconsideration, pursuant to Council Rule 51. Resolution and Ordinance Option 2 (June 15, 2016),
06/21/2016 Council adopted Motion, subject to reconsideration, pursuant to Council Rule 51 (vote: 13 ayes – 1 no); Ordinance over for second reading on June 28, 2016. Motion (June 21, 2016), Resolution and Ordinance Option 2 (June 15, 2016),
06/17/2016 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on June 21, 2016 . Report from Rules, Elections, Intergovernmental Relations and Neighborhoods Committee (June 17, 2016), Resolution and Ordinance Option 3 (June 15, 2016), Resolution and Ordinance Option 2 (June 15, 2016), Resolution and Ordinance Option 1 (June 15, 2016), Report from City Attorney (June 15, 2016), Report from City Attorney – Closed Session (June 15, 2016), Report from City Clerk (June 10, 2019)
06/17/2016 Rules, Elections, Intergovernmental Relations, and Neighborhoods Committee approved item(s) (Committee Approved Attachment 2 of the City Attorney Report). Resolution and Ordinance Option 2 (June 15, 2016), Report from City Attorney (June 15, 2016), Report from City Attorney – Closed Session (June 15, 2016), Report from City Clerk (June 10, 2019)
06/15/2016 Rules, Elections, Intergovernmental Relations, and Neighborhoods Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on June 17, 2016. Resolution and Ordinance Option 3 (June 15, 2016), Resolution and Ordinance Option 2 (June 15, 2016), Resolution and Ordinance Option 1 (June 15, 2016), Report from City Attorney (June 15, 2016), Report from City Attorney – Closed Session (June 15, 2016), Report from City Clerk (June 10, 2019)
06/15/2016 City Attorney document(s) referred to Rules, Elections, Intergovernmental Relations, and Neighborhoods Committee. Resolution and Ordinance Option 3 (June 15, 2016), Resolution and Ordinance Option 2 (June 15, 2016), Resolution and Ordinance Option 1 (June 15, 2016), Report from City Attorney (June 15, 2016), Report from City Attorney – Closed Session (June 15, 2016)
06/15/2016 Document(s) submitted by City Attorney, as follows: Report from City Attorney – Closed Session (June 15, 2016)
City Attorney report R16-0196, dated June 15, 2016, relative to discussion in Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) regarding the potential options responsive to a certified initiative petition concerning affordable housing and labor standards related to City Planning.
06/15/2016 Document(s) submitted by City Attorney, as follows: Resolution and Ordinance Option 3 (June 15, 2016), Resolution and Ordinance Option 2 (June 15, 2016), Resolution and Ordinance Option 1 (June 15, 2016), Report from City Attorney (June 15, 2016)
City Attorney report R16-0195, dated June 15, 2016, relative to the draft ordinances and ballot resolutions regarding a Certified Initiative Petition establishing Affordable Housing and Labor Standards related to City Planning.
06/10/2016 City Clerk document(s) referred to Rules, Elections, Intergovernmental Relations, and Neighborhoods Committee.
06/10/2016 Document(s) submitted by City Clerk, as follows:
City Clerk report, dated June 10, 2016, relative to a Certification of Sufficiency of an Ordinance Initiative Petition: Affordable Housing and Labor Standards for General Plan Amendments and Zoning Changes.
This publication is a compilation of bills pertaining to local and regional governance that the Governor signed in 2018. This publication is intended to be comprehensive, but it is not exhaustive of all bills that may be relevant to local and regional government. In general, chartered legislation went into effect on January 1, 2019. Bills that contain an urgency clause took effect immediately upon the Governor’s signature.
An ADU is an attached or detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation on the same lot as the single family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU)
A Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit is a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-family residence. A JADU may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure. The JADU or single-family residence shall be owner occupied.
Movable Tiny House (MTH)
A Moveable Tiny House is an enclosed space intended for separate, independent living quarters of one family and meets all of the following:
Is no larger than allowed by California State Law for movement on public highways; and
Is no smaller than 150 and larger than 430 square feet as measured within the exterior faces of the exterior walls.
Final Ordinance 186,481 Published (December 19, 2019), Effective (December 19. 2019)
LA Department of Building and Safety Submittal Requirements DOCUMENT NO.: P/GI 2020-032 (06/21/2021)
California Legislative Changes
Accessory dwelling unit (ADU) bills signed into law and go into effect on January 1, 2020–including AB 68 (Ting), AB 587 (Friedman), AB 670 (Friedman), AB 671 (Friedman), AB 881 (Bloom) and SB 13 (Wieckowski).
City of Los Angeles
The proposed ordinance would regulate the size and location of accessory dwelling units in Los Angeles and incorporate various provisions of State law.
Status update: The ADU Ordinance was adopted by the Planning and Land Use Management Committee on August 20, 2019. It is currently under review by the City Attorney.
Staff Contact
Matthew Glesne, City Planner
(213) 978-2666, matthew.glesne@lacity.org
CEQA: ENV-2019-1099-CE-ND Last Day to Act: N/A
Plan Area: Citywide
PROPOSED PROJECT:
The Project involves the adoption of the proposed Citywide Design Guidelines. The proposed
Guidelines will supersede the existing Residential, Commercial and Industrial Guidelines that were
previously adopted in June 2011 and consolidate them into a single document.
City Planning Commission 4 October 24, 2019
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
1. Recommend that the Commission determines, based on the whole of the administrative
record, that the proposed guidelines are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 and 15308, and there is no substantial
evidence demonstrating that an exception to a categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies; direct staff to file the Notice of Exemption with the County
Clerk’s office (see Exhibit B.1);
2. Recommend that the Commission find, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(b), after
consideration of the whole of the administrative record, including the Negative Declaration,
No. ENV-2019-1099-CE-ND (“Negative Declaration”) (Exhibit B.2), 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;
3. Recommend the adoption of the proposed Citywide Design Guidelines (Exhibit A); and
4. Recommend that the Commission direct the Department to update the “best practices”
sections of the Guidelines on an as-needed basis to reflect up-to-date design practices.
Staff: Claire Bowin, Senior City Planner
claire.bowin@lacity.org
(213) 847-3710
ADOPT enhanced non-monetary penalties effectuated by the Cities of Pleasanton and Glendale, requiring that a replacement project not exceed the height, square footage, and footprint of the demolished structure, which would serve as an effective deterrent to unpermitted demolition, as follows:
The City of Pleasanton’s proposed ordinance allows for a fine to be imposed based on the appraised value of the building before demolition, or the replacement value of the demolished building; and, states that new or replacement development needs to be no larger than the demolished historic building by square footage, floor area ratio, height, and location, with this development restriction in place for 20 years.
The City of Glendale prohibits the issuance of new construction permits for three years from the date of demolition.
The City of Glendale’s Demolition Deterrence Ordinance also contains affirmative maintenance of lot provisions as property maintenance requirements.
The City of Glendale requires in-kind reconstruction of destroyed or deteriorated features of a building that is illegally demolished, or demolished by through demolition by neglect.
The City of Glendale requires new structures to maintain the footprint, height, and square footage of demolished structures.
ADOPT increased fines via civil penalties tied to a property’s fair market value, as adopted by the Cities of New York and San Antonio, as follows:
The City of New York’s Landmarks Preservation Law imposes a civil penalty for unpermitted demolition in the amount of up to the fair market value of the improvement parcel, with or without the improvement.
The City of San Antonio levies a fine for unpermitted demolition in the amount of 90 percent of the fair market value of the cost of replacement or repair of such building, object, or structure; such fines collected are to be used for the benefit, rehabilitation, or acquisition of local historic resources.
The City of San Antonio considers demolition by neglect as a civil offense and imposes penalties of $1,000 per day.
CONSIDER a future Motion seeking a report back to the Council on the feasibility of directing the Department of City Planning (DCP), Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS), and the City Attorney to develop amendments to the Los Angeles Municipal Code and the Cultural Heritage Ordinance to ensure that stronger deterrent and enforcement mechanisms are codified; and, that property owners are duly notified of the changes to help safeguard the City’s historical resources.
REQUEST the City Attorney to prepare and present an Ordinance, with the assistance of the LADBS, if new fines are recommended to be added, or existing fees are increased.
INSTRUCT the LADBS, in coordination with the Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department (HCIDLA) and the DCP, to prepare any necessary fee study and conduct public hearings.
DIRECT the LADBS, in coordination with the HCIDLA and DCP, to add protected housing units, such as Rent Stabilization Ordinance, covenanted affordable housing, etc., to the types of buildings that will be subject to the additional penalties set forth in the policy; and, INSTRUCT the HCIDLA to join the effort and work with the existing City departments on the matter.
DIRECT the LADBS, in coordination with the DCP and the City Attorney, to draft ordinance language that would enhance non-monetary penalties for unpermitted demolition by requiring the replacement project to maintain the footprint, height, and square footage of demolished structures; for properties whose zoning designations allow for multi-family housing, property owners may exceed the footprint and size of the demolished structure, up to the existing zoning capacity, if they set aside a mandatory percentage of new units for covenanted affordable housing, or pay an in-lieu fee for affordable housing.
DIRECT the HCIDLA, in coordination with the LADBS, DCP, and the City Attorney, to conduct an analysis on the tipping point for the affordable housing requirement, setting the percentage to exceed any affordable unit requirements from other housing programs, including the Transit Oriented Communities Guidelines, or Density Bonus, while ensuring that a replacement project is not rendered economically infeasible.
Fiscal Impact Statement: None submitted by the LADBS. Neither the City Administrative Officer nor the Chief Legislative Analyst has completed a financial analysis of this report.
Community Impact Statement: Yes.
For: Mar Vista Community Council
03/02/2021 Council adopted item forthwith. Report from Planning and Land Use Management Committee 02/04/2021
02/26/2021 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on March 2, 2021. Report from Planning and Land Use Management Committee 02/04/2021
02/11/2021 Community Impact Statement submitted by Mar Vista Community Council. Refer to CF 17-0226-S1
02/04/2021 Planning and Land Use Management Committee approved item(s) . Report from Planning and Land Use Management Committee 02/04/2021, Report from Department of Building and Safety 11/10/2020, Motion (May 7, 2019)
01/29/2021 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on February 4, 2021. Report from Department of Building and Safety 11/10/2020, Motion (May 7, 2019)
12/03/2020 Planning and Land Use Management Committee continued item to/for 1/21/21. Report from Department of Building and Safety 11/10/2020, Motion (May 7, 2019)
11/30/2020 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on December 3, 2020. Report from Department of Building and Safety 11/10/2020, Motion (May 7, 2019)
11/10/2020 Department of Building and Safety document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Report from Department of Building and Safety 11/10/2020
11/10/2020 Document(s) submitted by Department of Building and Safety, as follows: Report from Department of Building and Safety 11/10/2020
Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety report, dated November 9, 2020, relative to penalties imposed for unpermitted remodels, additions, and demolition of buildings and structures.
02/04/2020 Motion document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Motion (May 7, 2019)
08/02/2019 Council action final.
07/31/2019 Council adopted item, subject to reconsideration, pursuant to Council Rule 51.
07/25/2019 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on July 31, 2019. Motion (May 7, 2019)
07/10/2019 Community Impact Statement submitted by Greater Valley Glen Neighborhood Council.Refer to CF 17-0226-S1
06/25/2019 Planning and Land Use Management Committee approved item(s) . Motion (May 7, 2019)
06/21/2019 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on June 25, 2019.
05/07/2019 Motion document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Motion (May 7, 2019)
In the Senate Governance and Finance Committee this morning, the authors of two of this year’s major housing bills announced a framework for a compromise that will merge SB 50 and SB 4 into one, along with a number of amendments to both bills.
Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), Chair of the Senate Housing Committee and Senator Mike McGuire (D-Santa Rosa), Chair of the Senate Governance and Finance Committee, have been working for the past several months to reconcile the two measures with provisions that both authors could agree to meet their core goals. As a result, SB 50 will be the vehicle for this compromise going forward. Senator Beall also will be a co-author on the bill and is proposing to advance SB 50 as part of a package of bills that deal with the housing crisis from various angles, including funding for housing and infrastructure, identification of surplus properties that can be used for affordable housing and streamlining.
To view the authors’ outline of intended amendments, follow this link to APA California’s website. APA California believes that the concept behind many of the changes are productive and in line with APA’s goals and principles, including higher density in infill/growth areas linked to transit and increasing affordability near major transit stops.
However, the actual bill reflecting the specific language implementing these compromise amendments is not yet in print. APA will need to see the actual text of the proposed amendments to understand their full impacts. Once the amendments are in print, we will post the updated bill on the APA website for members to review. We will also continue discussing amendments with
our Legislative Review Team members to evaluate the amended version of SB 50 and to identify what, if any, additional suggested amendments may be appropriate to provide to the authors.
If you are interested in SB 50 and would like to review the updated ve of SB 50 when it is in print, please contact APA California’s Vice President for Policy and Legislation Eric Phillips at ephillips@goldfarblipman.com. If you want to join APA California’s Legislative Review Team and help review all of the substantive legislation that impacts planning beyond SB 50, please contact APA California’s Administrative Director Lauren De Valencia, lauren@stefangeorge.com.
Motion (O’Farrell – Ryu) instructing the Department of City Planning to prepare a report relative to the existing zoning and land use patterns along Echo Park Avenue, Scott Avenue, Logan Street, Lemoyne Street, Montana Street, and Morton Avenue and its impact on the character of the abutting existing lower-density residential built environment; and to include recommendations for zoning/land use amendments to ensure that any potential future development complements, and is consistent with the scale and character of the existing lower density built environment in Echo Park described in the text of the motion.
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 (March 26, 2019),
04/11/2019 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on April 17, 2019 . Report from PLUM (March 26, 2019), Motion (May 22, 2017)
03/26/2019 Planning and Land Use Management Committee approved item(s) . Motion (May 22, 2017)
03/22/2019 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on March 26, 2019. Motion (May 22, 2017)
05/02/2017 Motion document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Motion (May 22, 2017)
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 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.
Levels of affordability planned at 2012 Berkeley Way. Source: Bridge Housing and Berkeley Food & Housing Project
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.
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.
1601 Oxford St. slated for a streamlined process, too
A rendering of 1601 Oxford St. Image: HKIT Architects
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.
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.
COMMUNICATION FROM THE MUNICIPAL FACILITIES COMMITTEE relative to negotiating and executing a master lease or license agreement with Kounkuey Design Initiative, for no monetary rent, to implement the Adopt-A-Lot Pilot Program for temporary uses of up to ten vacant lots to serve the residents of the City.
(Information, Technology, and General Services Committee report to be submitted in Council. If a public hearing is not held in Committee, an opportunity for public comment will be provided.)
Click on the BLUE highlight to view official documents and reports.
12/12/2018 Council adopted item forthwith. Report from Information, Technology, and General Services Committee 12/11/2018
12/11/2018 Information, Technology, and General Services Committee approved item(s) . Report from Municipal Facilities Committee (November 28, 2018), Motion (June 27, 2018)
12/10/2018 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on December 12, 2018. Report from Municipal Facilities Committee (November 28, 2018)
12/07/2018 Information, Technology, and General Services Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on December 11, 2018. Report from Municipal Facilities Committee (November 28, 2018)
11/28/2018 Municipal Facilities Committee document(s) referred to Information, Technology, and General Services Committee. Report from Municipal Facilities Committee (November 28, 2018)
11/28/2018 Document(s) submitted by Municipal Facilities Committee, as follows: Report from Municipal Facilities Committee (November 28, 2018)
Municipal Facilities Committee report 0220-05166-0002, dated November 28, 2018, with Department of General Services report, dated November 15, 2018, relative to a master license agreement with Kounkuey Design Initiative, a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, for use of up to ten City-owned vacant lots in the Adopt-A-Lot Pilot Program.
06/27/2018 Motion document(s) referred to Information, Technology, and General Services Committee. Motion (June 27, 2018)
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.
LOS ANGELES — Los Angeles City Planning Commission (CPC) recommended that the City Council adopt the Department’s Processes and Procedures Ordinance, an amendment to the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC). The proposed changes consolidate over 100 existing processes to about 50, laying the groundwork for a more user-friendly, transparent, and predictable set of rules for project review.
This bill would prohibit the prior underproduction of housing in a city or county from the previous cycle and stable population numbers in a city or county from the previous cycle from being used as a justification for a determination or a reduction in the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need. The bill would also require the final regional housing need plan to demonstrate government efforts to reverse racial and wealth disparities throughout a region by assigning additional weight to local governments that meet specified criteria in the distribution of the regional housing needs allocation for all income categories.
This bill bill, until January 1, 2024, would instead provide that a permit would remain valid for purposes of the California Building Standards Law if the work on the site authorized by that permit is commenced within 3 years after its issuance, or if the work authorized on the site by the permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of up to 3 years after the time the work is commenced. issuance. The bill bill, until January 1, 2024, would authorize the building official to grant, in writing, one or more extensions of time for periods of not more than 180 days per extension upon a written request by the permittee that demonstrates justifiable cause for the extension. The bill would also make conforming changes to the above-described provisions.
This bill would instead require a local agency that has or has not adopted an ordinance to consider a permit application for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit within 60 days. The bill would provide that, if a local agency imposes an owner-occupancy restriction, the frequency of monitoring owner occupancy shall not be monitored more frequently than annually, shall be based on specified published documents, and would further define “owner-occupant” for purposes of that requirement.
This bill would require that any density bonus, concessions, incentives, waivers or reductions of development standards, and parking ratios to which an applicant is entitled under the Density Bonus Law be accommodated under the California Coastal Act of 1976, but in a manner that harmonizes the Density Bonus Law and specified provisions of that act relating to coastal resources planning and management policies. permitted in a manner that is consistent with that law and the California Coastal Act of 1976. This bill would also declare the intent of the Legislature in this regard.
This bill would additionally require a city or county to provide the applicant with a determination as to the amount of density bonus and any parking ratios requested by the applicant for which the development is eligible and whether the applicant has provided adequate information to make a determination as to any incentives, concessions, or waivers or reductions development standards requested by the applicant. The bill would require that this determination be based on the development project at the time the application is deemed complete and that the city or county adjust the amount of density bonus and parking ratios awarded based on any changes to the project during the course of development. By adding to the duties of local planning officials in considering applications for density bonuses and other incentives or concessions, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
This bill would authorize a city council or county board of supervisors to establish a procedure by ordinance to grant a developer of an eligible housing development, upon the request of the developer, a floor area ratio bonus, calculated as provided, in lieu of a density bonus awarded on the basis of dwelling units per acre. The bill would define “eligible housing development” as a development that meets specified criteria related to residential use, location, zoning, replacement of units, and affordability. The bill would prohibit the city council or county board of supervisors from imposing any parking requirement on an eligible housing development in excess of specified ratios. The bill would require a city or county that adopts a floor area ratio bonus ordinance to allow an applicant seeking to develop an eligible residential development to calculate impact fees based on square feet, instead of on a per unit basis. The bill would also authorize an applicant for a floor area ratio bonus to submit a proposal for specified additional incentives or concessions, as provided.
This bill would would, until January 1, 2024, specify that, except as provided, the aesthetic effects of projects meeting certain requirements are not significant effects on the environment for purposes of CEQA and that the lead agency is not required to evaluate the aesthetic effects of those projects.
This bill would require a local agency to provide specified reductions in required parking for certain development projects in which a designated historical resource, as defined in the bill, is being converted or adapted, unless otherwise required by local ordinance. Because the bill imposes new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
This bill would require that supportive housing be a use by right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including commercial zones permitting multifamily uses, if the proposed housing development meets specified criteria criteria, and would require a local government to approve, within specified periods, a supportive housing development that complies with these requirements. The bill would require that a developer of supportive housing provide the planning agency with a plan for providing supportive services, with documentation demonstrating that supportive services will be provided onsite to residents in the project and describing those services, as provided. The bill would prohibit the local government from imposing any minimum parking requirement for units occupied by supportive housing residents if the development is located within ½ mile of a public transit stop. The bill would specify that its provisions do not (1) preclude or limit the ability of a developer to seek a density bonus from the local government or (2) expand or contract the authority of a local government to adopt or amend an ordinance, charter, general plan, specific plan, resolution, or other land use policy or regulation that promotes the development of supportive housing.
This bill would revise the above-described categorical exemption to include proposed residential and mixed-use housing projects occurring within an unincorporated area of a county. Because a lead agency would be required to determine the applicability of this exemption, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill also would require the office to recommend proposed regulatory amendments for the implementation of these provisions and would require the secretary to certify and adopt the changes on or before January 1, 2020.
CF 18-0002-S13 AT CITY COUNCIL 03/27/2018 Adopted, (13); Absent: Englander, Martinez (2)
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.
RULES, ELECTIONS, AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE REPORT and RESOLUTION relative to establishing the City’s position regarding SB 827 (Wiener), which would allow construction of housing developments near major transit stops without compliance with local land use regulations.
Recommendation for Council action, pursuant to Resolution (Ryu – Wesson), SUBJECT TO THE CONCURRENCE OF THE MAYOR:
ADOPT the accompanying RESOLUTION to include in the City’s 2017-18 State Legislative Program, OPPOSITION to SB 827 (Wiener), which would allow the construction of housing developments near major transit stops without compliance with local land use regulations.
Fiscal Impact Statement: None submitted by the Chief Legislative Analyst. The City Administrative Officer has not completed a financial analysis of this report.
Community Impact Statement: Yes.
For: Northridge East Neighborhood Council
Greater Echo Park Elysian Neighborhood Council
Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council
Rampart Village Neighborhood Council
Against: Empowerment Congress North Area Neighborhood Council
Click on the green highlighted date to view official documents and reports.
04/18/2018 Community Impact Statement submitted by Encino Neighborhood Council. Refer to CF 18-0002-S13
04/17/2018 Community Impact Statement submitted by Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council. Refer to CF 18-0002-S13
04/13/2018 Community Impact Statement submitted by Greater Valley Glen Neighborhood Council. Refer to CF 18-0002-S13
04/12/2018 Community Impact Statement submitted by Hollywood Hills West Neighborhood Council. Refer to CF 18-0002-S13
04/11/2018 Community Impact Statement submitted by Central Hollywood Neighborhood Council. Refer to CF 18-0002-S13
04/10/2018 Mayor transmitted Council file to City Clerk without signature, deemed approved..
04/10/2018 Community Impact Statement submitted by Harbor Gateway North Neighborhood Council. Refer to CF 18-0002-S13
04/07/2018 Community Impact Statement submitted by Silver Lake Neighborhood Council. Refer to CF 18-0002-S13
03/28/2018 City Clerk transmitted file to Mayor. Last day for Mayor to act is April 9, 2018.
03/27/2018 Council adopted item, subject to reconsideration, pursuant to Council Rule 51. Report from Rules, Elections, and Intergovernmental Relations Committee (March 23, 2018), Resolution (February 7, 2018)
03/26/2018 Community Impact Statement submitted by Hollywood Hills West Neighborhood Council. Refer to CF 18-0002-S13
03/24/2018 Community Impact Statement submitted by Westside Neighborhood Council. Refer to CF 18-0002-S13
03/23/2018 Community Impact Statement submitted by PICO Neighborhood Council. Refer to CF 18-0002-S13
03/22/2018 Community Impact Statement submitted by Rampart Village Neighborhood Council. Refer to CF 18-0002-S13
03/22/2018 Chief Legislative Analyst document(s) referred to Rules, Elections, and Intergovernmental Relations Committee. Report of Chief Legislative Analyst (March 22, 2018)
03/22/2018 Document(s) submitted by Chief Legislative Analyst, as follows: Report of Chief Legislative Analyst (March 22, 2018)
Chief Legislative Analyst report 18-02-0127, dated March 15, 2018, relative to Resolution (Ryu – Wesson, Jr.) to include in the City’s 2017-18 State Legislative Program its position for SB 827 (Weiner) which would allow the construction of housing developments near major transit stops without compliance with local land use regulations.
03/20/2018 Rules, Elections, and Intergovernmental Relations Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on March 23, 2018. Resolution (February 7, 2018)
03/16/2018 Community Impact Statement submitted by Empowerment Congress North Area Neighborhood Council. Refer to CF 18-0002-S13
03/07/2018 Community Impact Statement submitted by Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council. Refer to CF 18-0002-S13
03/01/2018 Community Impact Statement submitted by Greater Echo Park Elysian Neighborhood Council. Refer to CF 18-0002-S13
02/08/2018 Community Impact Statement submitted by Northridge East Neighborhood Council. Refer to CF 18-0002-S13
02/07/2018 Resolution document(s) referred to Rules, Elections, and Intergovernmental Relations Committee. Resolution (February 7, 2018)
PLANNING AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT relative to the feasibility of allowing haul route appeal extensions.
Recommendations for Council action, pursuant to Motion (Koretz – Ryu):
INSTRUCT the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, in consultation with the City Attorney, to prepare and present a report and draft ordinance that would allow haul route appeal extensions, similar to land use application extensions that are allowed by mutual consent between the applicant and Council.
Fiscal Impact Statement: Neither the City Administrative Officer nor the Chief Legislative Analyst has completed a financial analysis of this report.
Five information sessions for 2 ordinances: Permanent Supportive Housing Interim Motel Conversion to learn about the City’s efforts to provide supportive housing solutions for people experiencing homelessness. Flyer of dates and times – Information Sessions Homelessness
LOS ANGELES – Planning unveiled a set of updated procedures which will cut
the project review process by nearly one-half. The new system simplifies the approval
process making it easier for residents and developers to understand how projects in the
City of Los Angeles are handled.
Case No. CPC-2017-1240-CA, CEQA No. ENV-2017-1241-CE
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, PLANNING AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT and ORDINANCE FIRST CONSIDERATION relative to the Site Plan Review Process.
Recommendations for Council action, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MAYOR:
FIND that this action is categorically exempt (ENV-2017-1241-CE) from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
ADOPT the FINDINGS of the Los Angeles City Planning Commission, approved on May 11, 2017, as the Findings of the Council.
PRESENT and ADOPT the accompanying ORDINANCE date June 15, 2017, amending Section 16.05 of Article 6.1, Chapter 1 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code to align the Site Plan Review process with existing administrative appeal timelines and recent changes to State environmental and redevelopment law.
06/30/2017 Mayor transmitted file to City Clerk. Ordinance effective date: August 14, 2017.
06/28/2017 City Clerk transmitted file to Mayor. Last day for Mayor to act is July 10, 2017.
06/27/2017 Council adopted item, subject to reconsideration, pursuant to Council Rule 51.06/22/2017 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on June 27, 2017 . Draft Ordinance (June 15, 2017)
06/20/2017 Planning and Land Use Management Committee approved item(s) .Report from City Attorney (June 15, 2017), Draft Ordinance (June 15, 2017)
06/16/2017 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on June 20, 2017. Report from City Attorney (June 15, 2017), Draft Ordinance (June 15, 2017)
06/15/2017 City Attorney document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Report from City Attorney (June 15, 2017), Draft Ordinance (June 15, 2017)
06/15/2017 Document(s) submitted by City Attorney, as follows: Report from City Attorney (June 15, 2017), Draft Ordinance (June 15, 2017)
City Attorney report R17-0202, dated June 15, 2017, relative to draft ordinance amending the Los Angeles Municipal Code to align the site plan review process with existing administrative appeal timelines and recent changes to State environmental and redevelopment law.
05/30/2017 Planning and Land Use Management Committee continued item to/for a date to be determined.Staff Report (May 17, 2017), Findings (May 17, 2017), Proposed Ordinance (May 17, 2017), Report from CPC (May 17, 2017), Environmental Documents (May 17, 2017)
05/26/2017 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on May 30, 2017. Staff Report (May 17, 2017), Findings (May 17, 2017), Proposed Ordinance (May 17, 2017), Report from CPC (May 17, 2017), Environmental Documents (May 17, 2017)
05/19/2017 Los Angeles City Planning Commission document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Staff Report (May 17, 2017), Findings (May 17, 2017), Proposed Ordinance (May 17, 2017), Report from CPC (May 17, 2017), Environmental Documents (May 17, 2017), Interested Parties (May 17, 2017)
Los Angeles City Planning Commission report, dated May 17, 2017, relative to an ordinance amending section 16.05 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code to align provisions of the Site Plan Review Ordinance with recent changes to State law.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture recently released its CalCannabis Cultivation Licensing Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. The intent of the PEIR is to conduct environmental review of the regulations and the activities proposed by CDFA to implement the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act and the Adult Use of Marijuana Act. Agencies and interested parties may provide input on the environmental analyses, mitigation measures, and alternatives associated with statewide cannabis cultivation until July 31 at 5 p.m.
MCRSA and AUMA establish a regulatory structure for cultivation, processing, manufacturing, tracking, quality control, testing, inspection, distribution and retail sale of commercial cannabis. CDFA is required to promulgate regulations to license commercial cannabis cultivation. It must also establish a “track-and-trace” system, which involves developing a unique identifier for each plant, a reporting system and documentation of the plants’ paths from cultivation to distribution as a commercial cannabis product.
The Draft PEIR, released June 15, identifies multiple impacts from CDFA’s implementation of the proposed regulations, such as those to agricultural resources, air quality, and hydrology and water quality. However, it concludes that none of those impacts (save to cultural and tribal cultural resources) require mitigation and that none of the impacts would be significant with the implementation of mitigation.
The Draft PEIR identifies the “No High-Intensity Grow Light Alternative” as the environmentally superior alternative. That alternative would require that all cannabis cultivation operations use natural light and/or low-intensity artificial light. This would eliminate the license types of indoor cultivation and would restrict mixed-light cultivation to the use of low-intensity lighting. In addition, outdoor licenses would not be allowed to use high-intensity grow lights for propagation. The alternative would include a track-and-trace component similar to that described for the proposed program. However, the Legislature would need to amend MCRSA and AUMA to allow this alternative’s implementation.
If you would like Best Best & Krieger to assist you with the preparation of comments on the Draft PEIR or with review of any cannabis-related legislation, please contact the authors of this Legal Alert listed to the right in the firm’s Special Districts, Environmental Law & Natural Resources or Municipal Law practice groups, or your BB&K attorney.
Disclaimer: BB&K Legal Alerts are not intended as legal advice. Additional facts or future developments may affect subjects contained herein. Seek the advice of an attorney before acting or relying upon any information in this communiqué.
Public Hearing CPC-2017-2260-CA SATT DOES NOT ACTIVELY MONITOR THIS TOPIC
PROPOSED PROJECT: An amendment to the Los Angeles Municipal Code concerning location restrictions and limited immunity from enforcement of specified City prohibitions relating to commercial cannabis activity consistent with Measure M adopted by Los Angeles City voters on March 7, 2017.
PLACE: Los Angeles City Hall, Room 1010
200 N Spring St, Los Angeles CA 90012
DATE: Thursday June 29, 2017
TIME: 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon
This notice is to inform you of a public hearing for case number CPC-2017-2260-CA, a proposed amendment to the Los Angeles Municipal Code concerning location restrictions and limited immunity from enforcement of specified City prohibitions relating to commercial cannabis activity consistent with Measure M adopted by Los Angeles City voters on March 7, 2017. All interested persons are invited to attend the public hearing, at which you may listen, speak, and submit written information relating to the proposed amendment.
Please submit comments by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 12, 2017 to:
Niall Huffman niall.huffman@lacity.org, (213) 978-3405.
PLANNING AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT and HOUSING COMMITTEES’ REPORTS relative to the feasibility of expanding the Department of City Planning (DCP) Expedited Processing Section (EPS) to include the review of projects with new Environmental Impact Reports (EIR’s).
PLANNING AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT
Recommendations for Council action, as initiated by Motion (Cedillo – Wesson):
CONCUR with the recommendations in the Housing Committee Report dated February 9, 2016, attached to Council file Nos. 14-0057-S7 and 15-1251.
INSTRUCT the DCP to report on the feasibility of expanding the EPS to include the preparation and review of projects with new EIR’s; recommendations should include criteria for development projects to be eligible for expedited service, targets to reduce process time and track progress, and an appropriate fee structure, including the use of outside technical support.
Fiscal Impact Statement: Neither the City Administrative Officer (CAO) nor the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA) has completed a financial analysis of this report.
Community Impact Statement: None submitted. HOUSING COMMITTEE REPORT
Recommendations for Council action, as initiated by Motion (Cedillo – Wesson):
INSTRUCT the Department of City Planning to:
a. Report within 30 days on the feasibility of expanding the Expedited Processing Section, to include the preparation and review of projects with new environmental impact reports; recommendations should include criteria for development projects to be eligible for expedited service, targets to reduce process time and track progress, and an appropriate fee structure, including the use of outside technical support.
b. Prepare recommendations for revising the California Environmental Quality Act and other State and/or City of Los Angeles environmental regulations to streamline the review of affordable housing developments.
c. In conjunction with the Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department and any other relevant departments, prioritize the recommendations of the HOUSE LA Initiative Motions by which would have the largest impact on increasing the City’s housing stock, including recommendations 7D, 7K, 7L, 7M, and 8C of the joint CAO and CLA Comprehensive Homeless Strategy joint report to the Mayor and Council dated January 7, 2016.
DIRECT the City Clerk to create one Council file for the purpose of consolidating all HOUSE LA Initiative Motions (Council file Nos. 14-0057-S1, 15-1002, 15-1003, 15-1004, 15-1005, 15-1007, and 15-1251) and all forthcoming requested reports.
Fiscal Impact Statement: Neither the CAO nor the CLA has completed a financial analysis of this report.
06/28/2017 Council adopted item forthwith. Report from PLUM (June 6, 2017) , Report from Housing Committee (February 9, 2017)
06/22/2017 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on June 28, 2017 . Report from Housing Committee (February 9, 2017)
06/06/2017 Planning and Land Use Management Committee approved item(s) . Report from Housing Committee (February 9, 2017)
06/02/2017 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on June 6, 2017. Motion (October 21,2015)
03/01/2016 Planning and Land Use Management Committee continued item to/for undetermined date.
02/26/2016 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on March 1, 2016.
02/12/2016 Council action of February 9, 2016, created a new file. All previous activity can be found on Council File No. 15-1251.
01/27/2016 City Clerk transmitted Council File to Planning and Land Use Management Committee .
01/20/2016 Housing Committee approved item(s) as amended to direct the Department of City Planning, in conjunction with the Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department and any other relevant departments, to prioritize the recommendations of the HOUSE LA Initiative Motions according to greatest impact on the production of new affordable housing.
01/15/2016 Housing Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on January 20, 2016.
08/26/2015 Council also referred item to Housing Committee.
PLANNING AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT and HOUSING COMMITTEES’ REPORTS relative to amending the Site Plan Review Ordinance to increase the production of affordable housing in the City of Los Angeles.
PLANNING AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT
Recommendations for Council action, as initiated by Motion (Cedillo – O’Farrell):
CONCUR with the recommendations in the Housing Committee Report dated February 9, 2016, attached to Council file Nos. 14-0057-S3 and 15-1003.
INSTRUCT the Department of City Planning to prepare and present a report with recommendations to amend the site plan review ordinance, increasing the threshold from 50 residential units and establishing an administrative zoning clearance process for projects below this threshold as a strategy to increase the City’s affordable housing production.
Fiscal Impact Statement: Neither the City Administrative Officer (CAO) nor the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA) has completed a financial analysis of this report.
Community Impact Statement: Yes
Against: Valley Village Neighborhood Council; Greater Valley Glen Neighborhood Council
HOUSING COMMITTEE REPORT
Recommendations for Council action, as initiated by Motion (Cedillo – O’Farrell):
INSTRUCT the Department of City Planning to:
a. Report with recommendations to amend the Site Plan Review Ordinance, increasing the threshold from 50 residential units and establishing an administrative zoning clearance process for projects below this threshold as a strategy to increase the City’s affordable housing production.
b. Incorporate in its report Recommendation 7M of the joint CAO and CLA Comprehensive Homeless Strategy report to the Mayor and Council dated January 7, 2016.
c. In conjunction with the Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department and any other relevant departments, prioritize the recommendations of the HOUSE LA Initiative Motions by which would have the largest impact on increasing the City’s housing stock, including Recommendations 7D, 7K, 7L, 7M, and 8C of the joint CAO and CLA Comprehensive Homeless Strategy joint report.
DIRECT the City Clerk to create one Council file for the purpose of consolidating all HOUSE LA Initiative Motions (Council file Nos. 14-0057-S1, 15-1002, 15-1003, 15-1004, 15-1005, 15-1007, and 15-1251) and all forthcoming requested reports.
Fiscal Impact Statement: Neither the CAO nor the CLA has completed a financial analysis of this report.
An ordinance amending Sections 12.24, 14.00, and 14.3.1 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code to clarify existing regulations and align affordability requirements across the range of zoning entitlements that allow for increased density or floor area ratio beyond what is allowed by zoning. The ordinance will ensure the creation of affordable housing through certain conditional use permits and public benefit projects.
INTRODUCTION In 2005, the City of Los Angeles adopted a Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance (“Ordinance”) to allow the construction of homes on small lots creating a fee-simple type of ownership on lots zoned for multiple family development. Small Lots were intended as infill development and a smart growth alternative to traditional suburban style single-family subdivisions on sites zoned for apartment or condominium development. Supplemental design guidelines were created to assist in shaping this type of development with its unique complexities. Through ten years of implementation the City’s first-ever Small Lot Ordinance, and in response to recent Council motions, project appeals, and community discussion, the Department of City Planning is recommending an update to the existing regulations and procedures for small lot subdivisions. The intent is to ensure small lot projects will be more compatible with the existing neighborhood context and zoning. The proposed Code Amendment, Design Standards, and Map Standards will limit the buildable area of the lot, require greater setbacks, guest parking and access, building entry orientation, pedestrian access, and landscaping. … (Refer to Summary Sheet for additional information)
CONSIDERATION OF MOTION (HUIZAR – O’FARRELL) relative to the Studio City Residential Floor Area Supplemental Use District for all properties zoned R1 or RE.
Recommendation for Council action:
REQUEST the City Attorney to prepare and present an Ordinance to rescind Ordinance No. 182048 for the Studio City Residential Floor Area Supplemental Use District for all properties zoned R1 or RE (Council file No. 08-2332), inasmuch as the land use regulatory controls of the recently adopted and amended Baseline Mansionization Ordinance and Baseline Hillside Ordinance regulate development in single family zones by establishing variations of the R1 Zone and a Rear Detached Garage Supplemental Use District (Ordinance No. 184802), Council file Nos. 14-0656 and 16-1460.
Community Impact Statement: None submitted.
(Planning and Land Use Management Committee waived consideration of the above matter)
ADOPTED
AMENDING MOTION (HUIZAR – KORETZ)
Recommendation for Council action:
REQUEST the City Attorney to include an urgency clause in the Ordinance it is preparing relative to the Studio City Residential Floor Area Supplemental Use District for all properties zoned R1 or RE.
Adopted as Amended, (11); Absent: Krekorian, O’Farrell, Ryu (3)
01/22/2018 Council action final. Mayor Concurrence/Council Action 01/22/2018
01/18/2018 Ordinance posted/published. Ordinance effective date: January 19, 2018.
01/12/2018 Mayor transmitted Council File to City Clerk.
01/12/2018 City Clerk transmitted Council File to Mayor. Last day for Mayor to act is 01/22/2018.
01/12/2018 Council adopted urgent forthwith.
01/10/2018 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on January 12, 2018. Draft Ordinance 01/08/2018
01/10/2018 Planning and Land Use Management Committee waived consideration of item . Report from City Attorney 01/08/2018, Attachment to Report dated 01/08/2018 – Draft Ordinance 01/08/2018, Attachment to Report dated 10/25/2017 – Environmental 10/25/2017, Attachment to Report dated 10/25/2017 – Planning Report 10/25/2017, Attachment to Report dated 10/25/2017 – Findings 10/25/2017, Report from Los Angeles City Planning Commission 10/25/2017, Attachment to Report dated 10/25/2017 – Draft Ordinance 10/25/2017, Attachment to Report dated 10/25/2017 – Interested Parties 10/25/2017
01/09/2018 City Attorney document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Report from City Attorney 01/08/2018, Attachment to Report dated 01/08/2018 – Draft Ordinance 01/08/2018
01/08/2018 Document(s) submitted by City Attorney, as follows: Report from City Attorney 01/08/2018, Attachment to Report dated 01/08/2018 – Draft Ordinance 01/08/2018
City Attorney report R18-0001, dated January 8, 2017, relative to the draft ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 182048 and amending the zoning map referenced in Section 12.04(B) of the Los Angeles Municipal Code to apply the Single-Family R1 regulations.
05/03/2017 Council adopted item as amended, subject to reconsideration, pursuant to Council Rule 51.
04/28/2017 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on May 3, 2017 .
04/26/2017 Planning and Land Use Management Committee waived consideration of item .
04/07/2017 Motion referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee.
02/15/2012 Council Action.
02/14/2012 Mayor transmitted file to City Clerk. Ordinance effective date: March 25, 2012.
02/09/2012 City Clerk transmitted file to Mayor. Last day for Mayor to act is February 21, 2012.
02/07/2012 Council adopted item forthwith.
02/02/2012 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on February 7, 2012 .
02/01/2012 Planning and Land Use Management Committee waived consideration of item .
01/27/2012 City Attorney document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee.
01/27/2012 Document(s) submitted by City Attorney, as follows:
City Attorney report R12-0023, dated January 26, 2012, relative to the draft ordinance amending the Los Angeles Municipal Code regarding zoning map to establish a Studio City Residential Floor Area (RFA) Supplemental Use District.
10/05/2011 Council Action.
09/30/2011 Council adopted item, subject to reconsideration, pursuant to Council Rule 51.
09/28/2011 Council continued item to/for September 30, 2011 ,failed to achieve a Quorum, left on Desk.
09/23/2011 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on September 28, 2011 .
09/13/2011 Planning and Land Use Management Committee approved item(s) .
09/12/2011 Community Impact Statement submitted by Studio City Neighborhood Council.
09/11/2011 Community Impact Statement submitted by Studio City Neighborhood Council.
09/09/2011 Planning and Land Use Management Committee scheduled item for committee meeting on September 13, 2011.
09/02/2010 Los Angeles City Planning Commission document(s) referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee.
09/01/2010 Document(s) submitted by Los Angeles City Planning Commission, as follows:
Los Angeles City Planning Commission report, dated September 1, 2010, relative to the proposed ordinance for a Residential Floor Area Supplemental Use District and conditions for all non-hillside single-family residential zoned properties within specified boundaries.
09/05/2008 Motion referred to Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Motion (September 5, 2018)
Department of City Planning be authorized to negotiate and execute an agreement and any necessary associated agreement(s), subject to the approval of the City Attorney as to form, with the California Employment Development Department, to provide the City and any authorized contractor, with confidential employment data for firms located in select station areas along the Metro Orange Line and Metro Purple Line extension for use in the preparation of market studies for the Transit Neighborhood Plans program to: analyze employment trends within select station areas, allow the City to plan for future land uses that support vibrant neighborhoods and employment centers, and encourage further investment and employment growth around the region’s expanding transit network.
Click on the BLUE HIGHLIGHT to view official documents and reports.
05/03/2017 Council action final. Motion 04/25/2017
05/03/2017 Council adopted item forthwith. Motion 04/25/2017
04/28/2017 City Clerk scheduled item for Council on May 3, 2017. Motion 04/25/2017
04/26/2017 Motion referred to Council (tentatively scheduled for May 3, 2017). Motion 04/25/2017
