Archived Motions

The _____ NC/CC requests that the City Council open a Council File such that:

1.  The City implements the Five Principles of Responsible OutdoorLighting that minimize light pollution by following these guidelines (adopted by the Illuminating Engineering Society and the International Dark-Sky Association):

• All lights should have a clear purpose.

• Light should be directed only where needed.

• Light should be no brighter than necessary.

• Light should be used only when it is useful

• Use warmer color lights where possible.

2.   The City enacts/codifies these principles through its departments and agencies for City facilities and properties such as buildings, parking lots and parks, the streetlight system, the airport and port, and for private development.

3.  Community Plans and Specific Plans also enact similar dark sky practices and include limitations on bright lights, light trespass, and illumination of building facades.

Whereas, the City of Los Angeles has a history of discriminatory and disparate treatment in its oil drilling environmental compliance requirements whereby some communities are afforded greater protections from pollution and noise from oil drilling operations while other communities are not;

Whereas, the Murphy Drill site location in West Adams is an example of a community that has been exposed to toxic fumes and noise pollution that could be partially abated through facility enclosure and electrification of workover rigs and power supply, as has been done in wealthier communities, but have not been;

Whereas, on February 28, 2023, the City’s Planning Department issued a Letter of Determination on Case No. ZA-1959-15227-O-PA6 requiring additional and modified conditions for the continued operation of the Murphy Oil Drill Site “to increase the protection of and to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the residents and stakeholders of the neighborhood”;

Whereas, on March 13, 2023, E & B Natural Resources the operator of the Murphy Drill site filed an appeal to the City’s Letter of Determination;

Therefore, the [WRAC member] calls on the City of Los Angeles to uphold its February 28 Letter of Determination.

The ____ NC/CC requests that the Los Angeles Housing Department presume that 100% of RSO units slated for demolition per the Ellis Act are inhabited by low-income households, and 100% of the replacement units shall be rented at the corresponding low-income rent.

If the Housing Department or the developer wish to lower that standard and require that fewer replacement units are affordable, then they must do the outreach and secure estoppels from the tenant households that demonstrate their income exceeds the low-income requirements (instead of putting the burden on low-income households to prove that they are low-income tenants).

We further request that the Housing Department formulate and implement alternative income verification methods for current tenants who are elderly, disabled or undocumented to be able to qualify for their right of return.

The ____ NC/CC insists, on behalf of the stakeholders it represents, that prior to the completion of Community Plan updates, the City inform communities of the methodology by which it determines the allocation of RHNA numbers and the calculations that derive density housing goals in order to meet the aims of the Housing Element.

These include, for each Community Plan and Community or Neighborhood Council area:
A) Current zoning capacity (including existing density bonuses & commercial zones that allow residential uses) and reasonably expected population change.
B) The methodology which will be used to allocate RHNA growth numbers.
C) RHNA allocation of units in each community.

We also urge the Planning Department to thoughtfully consider the input (submitted by previous written comment or imparted in real time) of Neighborhood and Community Councils as well as stakeholders that come together for the purpose of contributing to the Community Plan update process with informed and productive input, insight and/or suggestions. This essential input must be implemented by Planning staff, and the contributions reflected by being substantively included in the outcome/drafting of revised Community Plans. We urge that a report back mechanism be implemented by Planning staff, in order to inform communities of where and how their input has been received and incorporated into the final drafting process.

We would like to understand the role of the Westside Community Plan Advisory Group (WCPAG) and be assured that the WCPAG’s voice will not outweigh that of local stakeholders.

The ______ CC/NC, a member of the Westside Regional Alliance of Councils, is concerned about the current status and management of the STAP program under the new contractor Tranzito-Vector and requests an audit of the program by the City Controller and Chief Administration Officer’s (CAO) office of the revenues and expenditures for this new STAP program.

(relevant Council File:  Council File No. 20-1536-S4)

The ______ CC/NC, a member of the Westside Regional Alliance of Councils, is concerned that removing one vehicle lane in each direction on Venice Blvd. between Inglewood Blvd and National Blvd. will divert traffic onto other adjacent local, collector and arterial streets. Until such time as LADOT conducts modeling studies to predict the volume of vehicular traffic that will be diverted off Venice Blvd. when the road diet component of this project is installed, our Council will be withholding its support for Phase One of the Venice Blvd Mobility Improvements project.

The member Councils directly affected by this project are: Venice, Mar Vista, Palms and South Robertson. The member Councils which may be affected by redirected traffic include: Del Rey, WLA/Sawtelle and Westside.

(relevant Council File: Council File: 22-0694)

____ NC/CC opposes the IKE program as present in Council File 22-1154 for the following reasons:

• There is no local competitive bidding process.
• This project needs a financial analysis, as it is using public space to generate revenue.
• This project has negative environmental impacts and there is no environmental review (CEQA).
• This project creates visual pollution and takes away space on the sidewalk that could be used for trees.
• This project is a source of driver distraction, which is contrary to the City’s Vision Zero policy.