Archived Motions

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.

Motion

Refers to City Council file 20-1175

Motion

The_________ NC/CC urges the City to (1) deny a business license and/or Dockless Mobility Permit, or suspend and/or revoke any previously-issued business license and/or Dockless Mobility Permit, to any provider of Dockless Mobility Devices operating in the City that fails or refuses to cooperate fully with law enforcement in providing information about the user of its Dockless Mobility Device involved in an accident causing injury to another person; (2) if and as necessary, immediately enact additional regulations amending existing rules and/ or data protection policies in the City’s Dockless Mobility Pilot Program to provide for issuance of business licenses and/or Dockless Mobility Permits only upon condition that providers cooperate fully with law enforcement under the circumstances set forth above; and (3) provide for suspensions, followed by revocation hearings, of any such licenses and/or permits issued to Dockless Mobility Device providers that fail or refuse to comply fully with law enforcement under the circumstances set forth above.

Motion

Refers to City Council file 11-1705

The _________ Neighborhood Council fully supports Version B+ of the proposed sign ordinance as approved by the City Planning Commission on 10/22/2015, Council File 11-1705. We request the PLUM committee of the Los Angeles City Council adopt a version of the ordinance, which accomplishes the following goals that are important to the stakeholders of our community:

1. Disapproves any amnesty for existing billboards that lack permits or have been altered in violation of their permits
2. Disapproves the “grandfathering” of any sign districts that were not approved in the ordinance when it was reviewed by CPC in 2009.
3. Disapproves any new process, including a Conditional Use Permit process to authorize construction or operation of digital off-site signs outside of sign districts
4. Restricts any new off-site signs, including digital billboards, to sign districts in the 22 areas already zoned as Regional Commercial for high-intensity commercial use
5. Requires existing billboards to be taken down before any new off-site signs can go up in sign districts. The take down ratio of existing signs to new signs should be 5:1 for conventional and 10:1 for digital
6. Ban on new digital billboards or on conversion of existing billboards to digital
7. Request that the City Attorney review all signs without permits and those altered in violation of their permits for enforcement action and compliance.
8. Prohibits any off-site signage in city parks, recreation facilities and open spaces
9. Provides for stiff civil penalties with escalating penalties for erecting or maintaining illegal signs and for multiple or repeat offenses so that penalties are not viewed as a cost of doing business

Motion

The ______ Neighborhood/Community Council requests that the State of California mandate that localities be empowered to assess the impact on traffic and congestion of ride sharing services by mandating comprehensive data from ride sharing companies available for study. Data should include time spent on the road to and from their homes and between rides for all ridesharing drivers as compared to traffic that would be generated by private vehicles making each trip. The results of this survey should guide both local and state policy in regards to ridesharing and better understand our transportation system. Using such data, the City of Los Angeles should then establish benchmark dates prior to and after implementation of each ridesharing platform and study in a scientific manner using all data available to determine if ride sharing vehicles add to or lessen congestion within the City of Los Angeles.

Motion

Refers to City Council file 20-1213

Motion to support Council File 20-1213 (Bonin and Koretz). Whereas some of the hillside communities of the Pacific Palisades, Brentwood, Bel Air and the Hollywood Hills are located in very high fire hazard severity zones and because many of the streets in these hillside communities are substandard and because many of the most recent fires have started in these hillside communities, forcing evacuations in the early morning and late night hours, and whereas some coastal areas of CD 11 are tsunami zones and/or subject to sea level rise, therefore the Department of City Planning, with assistance from the Emergency Management Department, Los Angeles Department of Transportation, and the Los Angeles Fire Department, is directed to report back on the capacity, safety, and viability of existing and potential evacuation routes in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and tsunami zones and those areas subject to sea level rise and to identify the policies and development standards, including land use and building restrictions, necessary to support these evacuation routes.

Motion

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.