Motions

Motion

Given a) the shortage of medical office space in Los Angeles, resulting in rents 30% higher than comparable commercial office space; b) that therapists, forced to choose between medical office space (zoned with reduced parking requirements) and non-medical space (which requires five parking spaces per 1,000 sq ft), often choose medical and thus further drive up demand; and c) that therapists do not require the specialty plumbing and facilities of other medical specialties; the __________NC/CC recommends that for psychotherapy and marriage and family therapist (MFT) practices which service single patients per session during normal business hours (9am to 5pm), the City should reduce the requirement from five (5) parking spaces per 1,000 sq ft of non-medical office space to three (3) parking spaces.

Motion

In response to widespread stakeholder complaints, the ___________ NC/CC calls upon the City to immediately:

1. mandate franchisees publicly document they have both the equipment and resources necessary to provide the timely and satisfactory services to ALL their customers;
2. proactively provide ALL customers of the new franchisees appropriate education on what the intent of the new regulations are and how they can manage their waste to keep their fees close to those paid under their previous service providers;
3. ensure that condo owners, apartment owners and businesses throughout Los Angeles are charged appropriately for the services contracted and that those payments do not exceed those for equivalent services paid by single-family homeowners;
4. set up a complaint line separate from the 311 call center to ensure issues are properly addressed until the transition is complete to customer satisfaction;
5. re-open the fee schedule (and conditions for extra services) as created by outside consultants and approved by the City Council to include stakeholder input through the Neighborhood Council system; and
6. to avoid worsening the homelessness crisis in the City, develop and implement strategies to mitigate the impact of rate increases on low-income households.

Motion

While supporting the importance of safe and accessible sidewalks for all City residents, there is increasing community concern at the environmental impacts of mass tree removals across the City as a part of the Program at a time when Los Angeles is facing ongoing challenges to its urban forest through drought, invasive pests, development, and lack of maintenance through reduced funding for the Urban Forestry Division. Further damage to our already insufficient and threatened urban forest canopy will have inevitable effects on the public health of all Angelenos, wherever they live, and send the City in the wrong direction in its efforts to address the effects of climate change and implement sustainability solutions.

We submit the following comments and recommendations:

1. Halt tree removals until EIR completed: The City should stop removing healthy street trees in its implementation of the Program until the SRP EIR is completed and alternative methods and materials to maximize tree retentions citywide have been fully considered and analyzed.
2. If removals continue, preserve existing trees wherever possible: If the Program continues with tree removals while the EIR is in process, then, whenever possible, viable existing trees should be preserved, and their growing spaces and conditions improved, if feasible, through the introduction of sustainability features. Tree removal should be viewed as a last resort. Mass removals of entire street blocks or rows of trees for project convenience or cost savings are short-sighted and will result in long-term costs for residents and the City as a whole. Each tree should be evaluated individually, on-site, by an ISA-certified arborist/municipal specialist who also at minimum holds a Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ).
3. Increase tree replacement ratio: There should be no net loss of canopy as a result of the Program. Trees should be replaced at a minimum ratio of 2:1. When a tree’s canopy exceeds 30 feet, the replacement ratio should be 4:1.
4. Update best management practices:
   1. Remove use of root barriers from Standard Plan S-456-2: Use of root barriers results in decreased root system stability. Root barriers are costly to install, raise the risk of tree failure, and do not reliably prevent growth of tree roots under sidewalks.
   2. Use 15-gallon trees for residential plantings: 15-gallon trees are significantly less expensive than 24″-box-size trees, result in a healthier tree with lower establishment watering needs, and will match the size of a planted 24″-inch box tree within a few years.
   3. Update City’s list of approved trees/increase species diversity: The City’s list of approved tree species for planting should be reviewed. New species that are low-water-use and will be more adaptive to wmming conditions due to climate change should be added to the approved list, and higher-water-use trees should be removed.
5. Complete a Tree Inventory: The City should complete a tree inventory, which is a basic urban forest management tool the City currently lacks, and without which there is no known baseline from which to assess the Program’s impacts on the urban forest. The last inventory was completed in 1991.
6. Create an Urban Forest Master Plan: The City should create an Urban Forest Master Plan, another essential urban forest management tool the City currently lacks.
7. Give timely public notice of proposed tree removals: All proposed tree removals should be notified well in advance to local residents, council district offices, and neighborhood councils, as well as to the general public via a City web page. The timeline should be sufficient to allow public participation, such as the consideration and discussion of alternatives to tree removal.
8. Disclose tree replacement locations: A frequently updated publicly accessible online tracking system and map should be available to provide data on tree replacements, specifying the locations of replacement trees, to give the public confidence that the City is meeting mitigation requirements.
9. Install sustainable features: Green infrastructure features such as curb cuts, bioswales, and larger tree wells should be integrated into reengineered sections of the City’s sidewalks, to increase the overall benefits to the City of its expenditure on the Sidewalk Repair Program.
10. Increase funding to the Urban Forestry Division: The budget of UFD should be increased so that the Division’s ability to continue to perform its existing work is not compromised and diminished through the use of its resources in serving aspects of the Sidewalk Repair Program.
11. Address effects on wildlife habitats and wildlife: Effects on wildlife and their habitats need to be quantified by appropriately qualified specialists, and mitigation measures identified to prevent or minimize negative impacts. For example, tree removals should not occur during nesting season.
12. Revise the Bureau of Engineering’s outreach presentation: The BoE’s current public outreach presentation on the SRP (and the rebate program for property owners) insufficiently addresses the extent and manner in which street trees and the City’s urban forest as a whole will be impacted by the SRP. Revised public outreach materials should explain the many ways in which the City’s urban forest is important, the environmental and public health impacts of tree losses, and the benefits of retaining existing street trees and ensuring the survival of newly planted replacement trees. Alternative methods and materials that will allow the preservation of existing trees should be well-publicized to residents and business owners. Information about the availability of green infrastructure components should likewise be well-publicized.
13. Periodically assess environmental impacts until program completion: Given the length of the Program, periodic reassessments of environmental impacts should take place, along with consideration of incorporation of newly available mitigation measures, and advances in alternative sidewalk repair methods and materials.
14. Monitor and ensure the survival of the replacement trees: The establishment period of a tree is generally accepted to be five years. The City has committed to a compromise 3-year watering period for SRP replacement trees. Watering after that time by property owners is not guaranteed. Survival of the replacement trees is essential to restoration of the City’s tree canopy and mitigation of ecosystem impacts. Their health and survival should be monitored and ensured.
15. Quantify health effects of tree losses: The EIR should quantify the health effects on the City’s residents of loss of trees and tree canopy as a result of the SRP if it continues on its present course.
16. Study alternative methods and materials for sidewalk repair: Professional specialists in sidewalk repair practices should be consulted for expert opinions and analysis of viable alternatives to tree removals, as well as advice on the implementation of added-benefit green infrastructure during sidewalk repairs and replacements. The sidewalk repair methods and materials used in environmentally progressive cities such as Portland and Seattle, which have addressed the same issues in recent years, should be reviewed to identify smart solutions and best practices. Sustainable design alternatives include such methods as meandering sidewalks, bridging over existing roots, curb bump-outs, larger tree-wells, and permeable sidewalk designs.

In conclusion: The Willits settlement provides an important opportunity for Los Angeles not only to create accessible and safe sidewalks for its residents, but to support the City’s much vaunted sustainability goals by undertaking the Program in a careful, informed, and well-considered way in order to maximize its benefits and minimize its harms.

Motion

The __________ NC/CC supports the City Council’s call to divest the City’s approximately $40 million in securities and end its contract with Wells Fargo, due to the bank’s fraudulent and grossly unethical conduct in opening millions of fake accounts and improperly charging mortgage fees, and the subsequent downgrading of their Community Reinvestment Act rating.

Motion

The ___________ NC/CC joins with the Neighborhood Council DWP Advocacy Committee in condemning the lack of transparency by DWP, the City Council, and the Mayor; and further calls for a full presentation and discussion on the new labor agreement to the Neighborhood Councils and Ratepayers.

Motion

___________NC/CC recommends the following changes and additions to the City’s proposed cannabis regulations:

1. To conform with State law, create a stable and legitimate business environment, and avoid the kind of exploitable “grey areas” created by Prop. D, the City must implement an unambiguous licensing system for commercial cannabis activities and include those activities as enumerated uses in the City’s municipal code.
2. Complaints about specific cannabis businesses collected by City staff, LAPD, Council offices, Neighborhood and Community Councils, and the City’s MyLA311 app should be included and considered in the licensing approval and renewal process.
3. Hearing dates and non-sensitive application information should be posted upon receipt on the Cannabis Dept.’s website, and notice sent to affected NCs/CCs.
4. The standard application process should include an assessment from the Planning Dept. on land use considerations, and should not be split into a separate land use approval and appeals process.
5. Retail cannabis storefronts should be limited to operating hours of 7am to 9pm. Deliveries should extend no later than 11pm.
6. In the interest of eliminating black market sales, the City should conduct a market-sizing study by January 1, 2019 (and every five years thereafter) to assess how well the City is addressing demand and to inform regulatory adjustments.

Motion

Version 1 (WRAC LUPC)
The City shall take proactive, definitive measures to comply with State laws that establish time limits for entitlement approvals, including the Permit Streamlining Act, and shall advise Neighborhood and Community Councils of these time limits as they draw near. These measures shall include but not be limited to:

1. Creation of a new tracking/tagging system with deadline alerts.
2. Align the date of the CEQA determination (whenever possible to be aligned with the entitlement determination).
3. Asking all applicants to voluntarily extend any determinative timelines at time of application submittal.

Version 2 (Broide / WNC)
The _______NC/CC calls upon the Planning Dept. to immediately outline concrete steps it will take to ensure that going forward, in making decisions on discretionary land use applications, the Planning dept. will meet all deadline required under Permit Streamlining Act.

Motion

The City (Planning Dept. and/or DBS) shall provide the site plan in order to provide stakeholders an opportunity to comment on the design.

WRAC is concerned that area stakeholders have received no site plan for review, and no opportunity for community input has been provided as part of development of the site plan, even though construction sitework has begun. The City promised that stakeholders would have a chance to collaborate on design of the site plan, as part of its decision to allow the Planning Commission rush approval without a final site plan, prior to Mayor Villaraigosa leaving office.

Motion

With regard to Council file CPC-2017-455-CA, WRAC believes no temporary offsite advertising signs should be allowed on construction fencing and that other regulations should be imposed including limiting paint color; openings provided every 50 linear ft. for police to peer in and deter crime; limiting signage to fences that face/front C zones; signs be allowed only on active construction sites (not on vacant sites that are being leased for car storage or construction staging for another site); maximum amount of signage limited to 6 sf of signage for every 50 ft.; and stringent graffiti cleanup. WRAC believes there is no public benefit to allow such signs all over the city when billboards are limited.

Motion

WRAC recommends opposing SB 649, which removes from cities the discretionary regulation of “small cell” cell phone towers in the public right-of-way and on city property. Exceptions for historic zones and Coastal Zone are included, but scenic highways and R zones are not included. Local control should be maintained. Cities have capability to properly analyze applications within existing laws and balance protection of neighborhoods with the need for increased wireless capacity.