Archived Motions

Motion

Whereas, the City of Los Angeles has imposed land use conditions in Conditional Use Beverage (CUB) permits for decades to protect public health, safety and welfare by mitigating potential impacts due to the sale or service of alcohol, as recommended by the LAPD, Council Offices, neighborhood councils, community councils, and local residents; and

Whereas, the Department of City Planning suddenly reversed this decades-long practice in 2012, on the advice of the City Attorney’s Office, with no public notice, no public process, no public hearings, and no direction from the City Council, which is charged with policy-making authority; and

Whereas, Zoning Administrators now unilaterally and without notice use the Plan Approval Process to remove previously-imposed conditions designed to avoid or mitigate actual or potential land use impacts adverse to public health, safety and welfare; and

Whereas, municipalities throughout the State of California have and continue to impose land use conditions to mitigate adverse impacts that may otherwise arise from the sale or service of alcohol, including the Cities of Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Palmdale, Lancaster, Huntington Park, Montebello, Orange, San Bernardino, Pinole, Ventura, San Buenaventura, Santa Cruz, Hayward, Walnut Creek, Watsonville, and the County of Los Angeles, among others; and

Whereas, the City’s current practice undermines the ability of the City and local communities to protect against potential land use impacts that are adverse to public health, safety and welfare, including but not limited to potential nuisances, by restricting the imposition of conditions on, among other things, hours of sale of alcohol, happy hours, container sizes, types of alcohol sold, and other similar rules and regulations, despite the efficacy of such conditions in avoiding or mitigating potential adverse impacts arising from the sale or service of alcohol; and

Whereas, California courts have repeatedly affirmed that municipalities have broad police powers to impose land use conditions that protect against potentially adverse impacts on public health, safety and welfare arising from the sale or service of alcohol; and

Whereas, the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) has not advised the City that the imposition of such land use conditions interferes with ABC’s enforcement of State law; and

Whereas, implementation of this new policy not only impairs the ability of the LAPD, Council Offices, and communities to protect public health, safety and welfare, but also interferes with the ability of CUB applicants to garner support for their projects by negotiating for the imposition of mutually agreed-upon conditions, as had been done for decades before the current practice was imposed, which forces communities to oppose projects they could otherwise support with proper conditions:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved that the [Insert Neighborhood or Community Council Name Here] calls upon the City Council to adopt a policy to:

(1.) Authorize the imposition of land use conditions that protect public health, safety and welfare by mitigating potential adverse impacts from the sale or service of alcohol, consistent with the practice of other jurisdictions statewide as well as the City’s decades-long practice prior to 2012;

(2.) Maintain and enforce previously-imposed CUB conditions on the sale or service of alcohol; and

(3.) Prohibit the removal of previously-imposed conditions outside the public processes mandated under the City Charter and Zoning Code.

Motion

WRAC recommends the City of Los Angeles oppose AB 1373 and requests Councilmembers Mike Bonin and Paul Koretz introduce a resolution opposing AB 1373.

Motion

City shall revise appeals process for Building Permits. Appeals of DBS determinations shall be done via the same simple process as appeals of Planning Dept. and Planning Commission determinations with similar fees. DBS “appeals” shall not be treated as a new case with public notification and CEQA requirements, because it is an appeal. An appeal is not a new proposed development project; it is an appeal of an already filed development project.

Motion

That WRAC supports the following:

• No new digital signage installed unless a Council District specifically requests them;
• No “community benefits”;
• No billboards on any public property;
• Sign districts must be limited to those identified in 2009 City Planning Commission ordinance
version; and
• No exceptions for Specific Plan or development agreement areas.

Motion

The _________ Council supports all efforts to increase public access to submitted plans and requests that the Department of Building and Safety devise a protocol that would give timely access for public inspection, and provides notice to adjacent property owners, Neighborhood Councils, [and Community Councils] as soon as such plans are submitted to the City.

Motion

WRAC recommends that land use and planning-related recommendations shall be disclosed in all City determinations in a “standing” section of City Staff Reports and City Determinations called “Neighborhood Council Recommendations.” Along with those recommendations, an explanation to be provided by the City decision maker if the NC recommendations are NOT followed.

Motion

WRAC recommends a vote of ‘no confidence’ in the City of Los Angeles Mobility Plan 2035 [Case Number: ENV 2013-0911-EIR and CPC-2013-0910-GPA-SP-CA-MSC; State Clearinghouse No. 2013041012] because of its failure to resolve and mitigate critical issues per the Statement of Overriding Considerations, including but not limited to emergency response time, insufficient infrastructure, and broader significant negative impacts on public health, safety and welfare.

Motion

WRAC requests that controls over approvals, transparency of the process and Staff training for both City and State Coastal Exemptions be strongly improved and that copies of the Coastal Exemptions be made immediately available to, or be immediately provided to applicable neighborhood and community councils.

Motion

WRAC requests that Councilman Bonin and Koretz co-sponsor a resolution in City Council opposing AB 57, which passed in the Assembly recently and is now in two State Senate Committees. See attached for information about the bill as well as a resolution opposing the bill which is being proposed by four San Francisco City Supervisors.

Motion

WRAC recommends the City of Los Angeles oppose AB 744 and requests Councilmembers Mike Bonin and Paul Koretz introduce a resolution opposing AB 744.