Adopted Positions

Motion

Refers to City Council file 09-0969-S3

The Westside Regional Alliance of Councils opposes the proposal by the City’s Chief Administrative Officer (Rich Llewellyn), to raise the fee for a citizen (or a community group, such as an HOA) to file an appeal of any city land use (or Building & Safety) decision, from the current $89 to the discriminatory amount of $16,097.  This amount that has no basis in reality will prohibit the majority of stakeholders in the City of Los Angeles from having meaningful access to any city land use appeal procedure.  Council File 09-0969-S3

Motion

The Westside Regional Alliance of Councils (WRAC) recognizes the need for positive solutions to the state’s affordable housing crisis, specifically as it relates to workforce and low-to-moderate income housing.  Solutions should involve legislation that 1) focuses on increasing the production and supply of truly affordable housing; 2) does not compromise public safety or the environment; and 3) respects principles of democracy, local land use control and self-determination of local governments to expand housing opportunities unique to their jurisdictions.

WRAC supports Senate Bill 15 (Portantino) and Senate Constitutional Amendment 2 (Allen and Wiener) as examples of positive legislation that forward the goal of achieving more affordable housing consistent with these principles.

Motion

Refers to City Council file 21-0002-S21

See also WRAC Position Letter to Senate.

Whereas, Senate Bill 10 violates the California Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 10(c)) and principles of democracy and true local control by allowing local governments (i.e., a majority of the current or future City Council) to upzone single family residential properties and speed approval processes for increased density/multi-unit housing, without stakeholder involvement and by overriding community-driven local restrictions on adopting zoning ordinances, including restrictions enacted by voter initiatives;

Whereas, Senate Bill 10 violates the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code §§30000 et seq.) by failing to exempt parcels within the Coastal zone and by allowing by-right/expedited approval of development projects with up to 10 dwelling units on properties that are upzoned under the bill, including projects within the Coastal zone which require discretionary review under the Coastal Act;

Whereas, Senate Bill 10 violates the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21065 and 21080) and shortcuts required CEQA review by declaring preemptively that an ordinance by a local government (i.e., a majority of the current or future City Council) to upzone a single family residential property pursuant to the bill is not a “project” under CEQA, without consideration of whether the ordinance in a given case is “capable of causing a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment” (Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego (California Coastal Commission, Real Party in Interest), (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1171);

Whereas, Senate Bill 10 potentially compromises public safety and may put the lives and property of thousands of California residents in single family residential areas that are also in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) at risk from increased density by failing to provide for an unconditional exemption from upzoning under the bill for properties in the VHFHSZ;

Whereas, Senate Bill 10 prevents public scrutiny and bypasses democratic process by providing that state agencies alone, without local community input, would identify and maintain a controlling map of so-called “jobs-rich” areas throughout the state for purposes of upzoning single family residential properties under the bill;

Whereas, Senate Bill 10 circumvents controlling caselaw by, in effect, allowing for “spot zoning” by local governments (i.e., a majority of the current or future City Council) without consideration of whether upzoning a single family residential property would be of substantial benefit to the public in a given case (Foothills Communities Coalition v. County of Orange (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1302);

Whereas, Senate Bill 10 fails to address the state’s affordable housing crisis or to further the purported goal of “ensuring an adequate supply of affordable housing” by not requiring any particular amount or level of affordable (low to moderate income/workforce) housing in development projects to be built on properties that are upzoned under the bill;

Whereas, Councilmember Paul Koretz has introduced a resolution in Los Angeles City Council, CF 21-0002-S21, calling for the City of Los Angeles to oppose Senate Bill 10;

Therefore, the Westside Regional Alliance of Councils (WRAC) opposes Senate Bill 10 (Wiener) and supports the resolution in CF 21-0002-S21 (Koretz), calling for the City of Los Angeles City to oppose Senate Bill 10.

Motion

Refers to City Council file 21-0002-S18

See also WRAC Position Letter to Senate.

Whereas, Senate Bill 9 violates the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code §§30000 et seq.) by failing to exempt parcels within the Coastal zone, by purporting to eliminate hearings for Coastal Development Permits, and by requiring by-right/expedited approval of all projects permitted under the bill, including projects within the Coastal zone which otherwise require discretionary review, including hearings, under the Coastal Act;

Whereas, Senate Bill 9 violates the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21065 and 21080) and shortcuts required CEQA review by declaring preemptively that a project permitted under the bill is not a “project” under CEQA, without regard to the test established by controlling caselaw, that is, whether the ordinance in a given case is “capable of causing a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment” (Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego (California Coastal Commission, Real Party in Interest), (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1171);

Whereas, Senate Bill 9 compromises public safety and puts the lives and property of thousands of California residents in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) at risk from increased density by failing to provide any exemption for parcels within the VHFHSZ;

Whereas, Senate Bill 9 fails to address the state’s affordable housing crisis or to further the purported goal of “ensuring an adequate supply of affordable housing” by not specifying or requiring any particular amount or level of affordable housing (low to moderate income/workforce housing) in projects permitted pursuant to the bill;

Whereas, Councilmember Paul Koretz has introduced a resolution in Los Angeles City Council, CF 21-0002-S18, calling for the City of Los Angeles to oppose Senate Bill 9;

Therefore, the Westside Regional Alliance of Councils (WRAC) opposes Senate Bill 9 (Atkins) and supports the resolution in CF 21-0002-S18 (Koretz) calling for the City of Los Angeles to oppose Senate Bill 9.

Motion

Refers to City Council file 20-1536

The Westside Regional Alliance of Councils supports the Bonin/Blumenfield motion in CF 20-1536, and further requests that:

• prior to contract finalization, the City conduct an extensive and open public process, in which detailed information about STAP, the RFP and the contract negotiation process is made widely available and members of the public, community leaders and neighborhood/community councils are invited to provide ongoing input on community impacts, problems and ridership needs with respect to STAP;
• in connection with any contract that is eventually negotiated, the City 1) respect and abide by Community Plan, Specific Plan, Scenic Highway and Coastal Zone protections and requirements, including in the public right of way, and 2) address constituents’ concerns about preservation of community character, protection of residential neighborhoods, public safety, environmental impacts and privacy infringement;
• all protections for scenic corridors, for local street furniture preferences and for neighborhoods with Specific Plans and codified prohibitions against off-site advertising that were negotiated and included in the JCDecaux contract be carried forward in any new contract that is negotiated; and
• the City restrict any new digital signs in or near bus shelters to sign districts in the 22 areas already zoned as Regional Commercial for high-intensity commercial use.

Motion

Motion

Refers to City Council file 20-1174

Motion to support Council File 20-1174 (Koretz and Ryu).  Whereas there are unfinished development projects citywide, which were issued building permits, in some instances, more than 8 years prior, such unfinished projects causing the building sites to become eyesores and a disturbance to abutting property owners and neighborhood residents, therefore the City Council is to instruct the Department of Building and Safety, in consultation with the City Attorney, to prepare a report with the department’s enforcement of Municipal Code 91.106.4.4.3 to provide remedies such as a completion bond, which sets time limits to complete projects.

Motion

RESOLVED ____ NC/CC insists that Neighborhood Councils are not prohibited from communicating with non-City of Los Angeles government representatives and/or staff not with entities other than those within the City, regarding issues impacting their neighborhoods; and that Neighborhood Councils are free to discuss any issues of local concern.

Motion

Whereas the Sacramento Legislative process known as “gut and amend” eliminates transparency and public participation by misleading the intent and content of the bill being considered,

The NC/CC _____________ recommends the following reform: Eliminate the “gut and amend” bill process and request the City of Los Angeles include in its Sacramento legislative priorities the elimination of the “gut and amend” bill process.

Motion

Motion to support and include for official input to the Los Angeles Department of City Planning in reference to the WRAC Member Community Plan updates, a delay of 6 months due to COVID 19 and restrictions related to public access, meetings and participation and further request the following:

• An appropriate assessment of how the COVID 19 and future pandemics will impact current and future mobility, housing, design, environmental and health and safety needs and concerns.
• Current and future data projections relevant to the task of updating all WRAC member Community Plans.
• Incorporation of an additional step in the Community Plan update timeline that allows for presentation of the staff draft plan and an associated public comment period, or a second and revised concept plan phase. Allocation of time for staff to review public comments and incorporate changes to reflect input prior to issuing any NOP for the start of the environmental review process. It is improper to issue an NOP and conduct a DEIR for a draft plan that the community has had neither the chance to see or review.
• Thorough public outreach is a must and should include all stakeholders. The Planning Department has not allocated proper time or resources, and City Council must do so moving forward so that no stakeholders are left uninformed about the process.