Archived Motions

All motions introduced at WRAC

SB 50 – opposition to Senate Bill

Formally adopted by WRAC in January 1970

Passed by

  • Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council (modified version)
  • Brentwood Community Council (modified version)
  • Del Rey Neighborhood Council (modified version)
  • Mar Vista Community Council (modified version)
  • Pacific Palisades Community Council
  • Venice Neighborhood Council
  • West LA-Sawtelle Neighborhood Council
  • Westside Neighborhood Council
  • Westwood Community Council

Motion

PROPOSED WRAC LUPC MOTION OPPOSING SB 50 DRAFT 4 [WIENER]

Whereas California neighborhoods depend upon high quality, citizen driven, local community planning for justice and equity and balanced development, and

Whereas State Senate Bill 50 [Scott Wiener] weaponizes state government code to eviscerate local planning statewide and thereby increases financialization of land use; intensifies inequality; encourages predatory speculative activity; and masks massive wealth transfer by shifting property ownership opportunities away from small owners to corporate investors, and

Whereas the City Charter-mandated Neighborhood Council system of Los Angeles, and the Community Councils of the City of Los Angeles, represent grass roots democracy, and

Whereas California State Senate Bill 50 [Scott Wiener] establishes “one size fits all” development criteria–based on changeable municipal structures such as bus stops and employment locations–to be determined, without democratic due process or public scrutiny, by the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Office of Planning and Research, and

Whereas the lack of analysis of infrastructure and other costs associated with this pen stroke planning creates grave uncertainty that any local agency would be able to “levy enough service charges, fees or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code”, and given the aforementioned lack of fiscal analysis, Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution “No reimbursement” clause is wrongfully applied to this legislation,

Whereas reform is needed for the present state legislative system which allows sweeping, ideological blunt instrument legislation such as SB 50 to be introduced without extensive vetting in local public hearings prior to consideration in the State Legislature, and

Whereas this wholesale removal of all land use authority to the State clearly abolishes all meaningful local input into land use planning and therefore constitutes an attack upon local democracy, upon neighborhoods, and upon the Neighborhood Councils and Community Councils in the City of Los Angeles,

Therefore,  ____________ Neighborhood/Community Council opposes SB 50 and urges our City Councilmembers to

introduce a resolution in Council forthwith, opposing SB50.

 

TALKING POINTS: SB 50 CHAPTER 4.35. Equitable Communities Incentives 65918.50:

Essentially the same fatal flaws as 827 with huge impacts upon local planning.

Reason to oppose now rather than wait until April: Important to register strong objections immediately in January/February as the bill’s author has control of the State Senate Housing Committee which has been split off from Transportation.

Weaponizing of state code: FAR, or floor area ratio, is a city’s basic tool to control height and bulk of buildings. Use is a city’s basic tool to determine what goes in those buildings. Moving FAR and use to Sacramento guts local planning processes.

The density bonuses in this bill become the required base level, and stacking of bonuses is allowed

The bill forces cities to permit over the counter larger multi-family residential structures in “transit-rich” zones, regardless of limitations imposed by local community plans, specific plans, zoning restrictions or jurisdiction boundaries; it also forces cities to allow such structures near “jobs-rich projects,” to be determined not on the local level but by State agencies in Sacramento. NCs and CCs would not get an opportunity to review or comment. This state control could be expanded without warning.

The potential for increased financialization of land use, and for predatory speculative activity, should be fairly obvious considering ongoing FBI investigations into LA’s CC PLUM process as well as the rise of short-term rentals.

Porting land use decision making to Sacramento, where there is arguably less public scrutiny than local municipalities, is not a particularly good idea for open, transparent, responsive government.

California should be looking to increase ownership opportunities for communities of concern.

SB 50 seeks to impose community plan time limits raising this potential scenario: All Los Angeles’ Community Plan updates might not be finished–and legally approved–in time. Moving thousands of projects to by-right status means no community benefits exchanged for these concessions as benefits are typically written into LA’s plans. A community plan with community benefits imposed after the fact could well be tossed out in court. State law trumps local.

Bottom line: with the housing packages previously approved by the state legislature, there is no need for this bill.

NOTE: Gov. Newsom seeks to withhold gas tax revenues from cities which do not meet their RHNA goals. There exists some agreement that RHNA needs to be equitably applied, and that therefore RHNA is the more appropriate vehicle for legislative adjustments increasing housing production in California.

 

References to current provisions in the draft bill are in red:

  • Ignores infrastructure by setting statewide, inflexible “minimum performance standards for community plans, such as minimum overall residential development capacity” without any CEQA analysis: 55 (b)(3)

 

  • Allows an “equitable communities incentive” automatic base of 5 concessions, including waivers from maximum density controls, for the new “Jobs-rich housing project” definition: 53 (a)(1) and 6 concessions for Major Transit Stops 65918.53 (2) and (3)

 

 

  • Enables “bonus stacking” through connecting the existing concessions in state density bonus law [SB 1818, now Section 65915] which presently enables reductions relative to “…site development standards; modification of zoning code requirements; architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission…including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square footage requirements”, again without CEQA analysis 53 (a)(4)

 

  • Establishes a rigid statewide zoning code for FAR…and use: 53 (a) and (b)

 

 

  • Overrides ReCode’s tools for bulk and mass: 53

 

  • Essentially eliminates grass roots participation in the majority of local land use planning decisions by superimposing a new ‘as of right’ project definition, “Job-rich housing project”, which is based on fluctuating municipal conditions. Companies open and close and move, but high-density land use entitlements based on snapshots in time may be granted in perpetuity through this proposed law: 50 (f)

 

  • Raises significant due process issues as Department of Housing and Community Development and the Office of Planning and Research become the de facto state zoning board and board of appeals: 50(f) and (j)

 

 

  • The tenant occupancy time limits offer a false sense of security as the bill’s more onerous provisions are merely postponed. Community rights to plan responsibly are overridden after the delay. Meanwhile, an incentive to speculative land banking exists as big capital investors can afford to offer cash for properties in the target areas, accumulate multiple single owner properties, evict tenants, and wait until after the 7-year delay to build. This process destroys the fabric of stable communities, siphons off affordable housing, and creates blight 52(d)

 

  • No pro forma requirement whatsoever

 

 

Read more

Tree removal notification

Formally adopted by WRAC in October 2018 | Download the WRAC position letter

Passed by

  • Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council
  • Brentwood Community Council
  • Del Rey Neighborhood Council
  • Mar Vista Community Council
  • Pacific Palisades Community Council
  • Palms Neighborhood Council
  • South Robertson Neighborhoods Council
  • Venice Neighborhood Council
  • Westwood Community Council
  • Westwood Neighborhood Council

Motion

Increase the notification to NCs and CCs from Urban Forestry Dept. beyond the current three-day notice policy for removals of 1-2 trees.

Read more

Request for planning data prior to start of Community Plan update

Motion failed to be adopted by a majority of Councils before the November 2018 deadline

Passed by

  • Brentwood Community Council
  • Mar Vista Community Council
  • Westwood Community Council

Motion

The _____ Council requests the Planning Department provide all information (below), prior to commencing any work on the Community Plan Update process.

These data are prerequisite for meaningful asset-based grassroots planning input to any Community Plan, whether it is for the Westside’s first cycle (Palms-Mar Vista-Del Rey, Westchester-Playa del Rey, West Los Angeles Venice) or the second cycle (Westwood, Bel Air-Beverly Crest, Brentwood-Pacific Palisades):

  1. What is the current aggregate population in the Community Plan area?
  2. What is the projected population in the build-out year?
    a. How is it calculated? Who calculates it? Is the U.S. Census used?
  3. What is the population capacity in the current zoning, including R zones and C zones with density bonuses (Transit Oriented Communities, Expo Station Transit Neighborhood Plan) and Accessory Dwelling Units?
  4. What is the population capacity in the proposed zoning, including R zones and C zones with density bonuses (TOC, Expo Station TNP) and ADUs?
  5. Capacity of jobs or count of jobs currently.
  6. Change in jobs as a result of proposed zoning, either by increase in C or M zones or reduction in jobs if C or M zones are decreased.

Read more

NC Systems Reform

Motion failed to be adopted by a majority of Councils before the November 2018 deadline

Passed by

  • Brentwood Community Council
  • South Robertson Neighborhoods Council (modified version)

Motion

Refers to City Council file 18-0467

The _________ Council recommends that the Neighborhood Council reforms proposed by Councilmember Ryu (CF-18-0467) include the following:

  1. That the City Administrative Code be amended to revise the current definition of Neighborhood Council stakeholders (including removing the “community impact stakeholders”) as follows:
    “Stakeholders shall be defined as those who live, work, or own real property within the Neighborhood Council boundaries. With the approval of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, Neighborhood Councils may—and are encouraged to—expand this definition within their bylaws to include other defined groups of stakeholders.”
  2. That in the interest of ensuring that local constituencies represented by Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils are heard, City Administrative Code (Section 22.819) be amended to require that seating be reserved at City departmental hearings, commission meetings, and Council meetings for members of Neighborhood and Community Councils.
  3. That provision be made for qualified Community Councils to be officially recognized as independent City community advisory bodies, and afforded the same courtesies, notice, and access provided to Neighborhood Councils.

Read more

Extend Community Plan timeline

Motion failed to be adopted by a majority of Councils before the November 2018 deadline

Passed by

  • Brentwood Community Council
  • Mar Vista Community Council
  • Pacific Palisades Community Council
  • Westside Neighborhood Council
  • Westwood Community Council

Motion

The _____ Council finds the Community Plans Update Outreach Plan timeline of 3 years to be ambitious (consider that the West Adams-Baldwin Hills-Leimert and Granada Hills Plans required 7 years, and the Expo Station Neighborhood Transit Plan required 4.5 years), potentially limiting adequate public input and feedback.

Therefore, we request that the Planning Department be funded to extend the timeline if and as needed to accommodate achievement-anchored benchmarks.

Read more

Support for Protected Tree ordinance

Formally adopted by WRAC in September 2018 | Download the WRAC position letter

Passed by

  • Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council
  • Brentwood Community Council
  • Pacific Palisades Community Council
  • Palms Neighborhood Council
  • South Robertson Neighborhoods Council
  • Venice Neighborhood Council
  • West LA-Sawtelle Neighborhood Council
  • Westside Neighborhood Council
  • Westwood Community Council

Motion

Refers to City Council file 03-1459-S3

The ______________ Council supports the initiative of Councilmembers Paul Koretz (CD5) and Mike Bonin (CD11) in their November 22, 2017 Motion to City Council to strengthen the City’s Protected Tree Ordinance #177404.

Read more

Opposition to the automatic renewal of the City’s bus shelter advertising 20-year contract with Decaux

Motion withdrawn prior to October 2018 passage deadline

Passed by

  • Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council
  • Brentwood Community Council
  • Pacific Palisades Community Council (modified version)
  • Palms Neighborhood Council
  • South Robertson Neighborhoods Council
  • Venice Neighborhood Council
  • Westwood Community Council
  • Westwood Neighborhood Council

Motion

The ______________ Council strongly opposes the automatic renewal of the City’s Bus Shelter/Advertising 20-year contract with AC Decaux. The Council further requests the City to withdraw the renegotiation of the sidewalk furniture contract with Decaux from the City Attorney’s office, and to allow a process of community input which can culminate in an open RFP, awarded based on parameters laid out by community impact and ridership needs. The City should solicit comments from the community about problems/issues, and then issue an open RFP that addresses these issues/problems to numerous advertising firms.

Read more

Support for the CEQA Appeals Code Amendment of June 6, 2018

Motion failed to be adopted by a majority of Councils before the September 2018 deadline

Passed by

  • West LA-Sawtelle Neighborhood Council
  • Westside Neighborhood Council

Motion

The ______________ Council supports CEQA Appeals Code Amendment of June 6, 2018 (CPC-2018- 2657-CA ENV-2018-2658-CE) and recommends limiting the fee for residents to $250.

Read more

Regulate Personal Electric Scooters

Motion withdrawn prior to September 2018 passage deadline

Passed by

  • West LA-Sawtelle Neighborhood Council
  • Westside Neighborhood Council (modified version)

Motion

The ______________ Council requests that the city regulate personal electric scooter issues with regard to public safety and accessibility.

Read more

Opposition to Deferred Retirement Option Plan of the LA Police and Firefighters

Motion withdrawn prior to September 2018 passage deadline

Passed by

  • Westside Neighborhood Council

Motion

The ___________ Council supports the community impact statement filed by the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council calling for the City Council to take immediate action to comprehensively address and remedy the documented waste, fraud, and abuse in Los Angeles’s Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP).

Read more

1 2 3 8