Motions

Short Term Rentals (LANCC)

Proposed for future WRAC consideration

Passed by

  • Brentwood Community Council
  • Neighborhood Council of Westchester/Playa
  • Venice Neighborhood Council
  • Westwood Neighborhood Council

Motion

Whereas, it is now clear that short term rentals are illegal in Los Angeles’ residential neighborhoods, and Whereas the City Attorney has consistently refused to prosecute short-term rental violations in the City of Los Angeles, for a variety of reasons,

Now, therefore, be it resolved, that WRAC urge City Attorney Mike Feuer to enforce the law as required by the Charter, and immediately prosecute short-term rental zoning violations in the City of Los Angeles.

WRAC demands that if after 60 days of this notice, Mr. Feurer does not start enforcement, City Council take action to hire a private law firm to start enforcement procedures and reallocate the City Attorney’s budget to pay for those services.

ALL Short-Term Rentals (“Airbnb” is commonly known terminology) are illegal in Residential Zones in the City of Los Angeles. L.A.M.C section 12.21(A) (1) (a). A short-term rental is a rental that lasts fewer than 30 days. It is illegal to “AirBnB”(short-term rent) any portion of an apartment or house, regardless of whether you are a tenant or a landlord. This would include hotbeds like Silver Lake and Venice, which are mostly zoned low-density residential.

If you are tenant in a residential zone, it is irrelevant whether you have a written agreement with your landlord permitting you to do AirBnB. The agreement is considered illegal and unenforceable and the landlord can still evict you if he so chooses, at any time. You can also be prosecuted regardless of landlord permission. It is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months imprisonment. LAMC Section 11(m).

If you are a rent-controlled tenant in a residential zone, Airbnb-ing your apartment is grounds for eviction, because rent-controlled tenants are not permitted to use their apartments for an “illegal purpose”

L.A.M.C 151.09(A) (4)

Read more

LADWP Ballot Measure (LANCC)

Motion failed to be adopted by a majority of Councils before the May 2016 deadline

Passed by

  • Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council
  • Brentwood Community Council
  • Westwood Community Council
  • Westwood Neighborhood Council

Motion

Refers to City Council file 16-0093

WRAC supports the DWP Oversight Committee calls on the City Council to follow the recommendation in the IEA Survey to form “a committee to examine governance reforms for the Department with the explicit task of reporting its findings and recommending a measure for the 2017 ballot.”

This Governance Committee should be involved in drafting any memorandums and other information from the beginning and include at least two members from the Neighborhood Councils who are familiar with the operations and finances of DWP.

The DWP Oversight Committee recommends that there be a robust and transparent discussion and debate before any measure is placed on the ballot for voter approval or rejection.

Read more

Enforcement of all zoning and building codes

Formally adopted by WRAC in May 2016

Passed by

  • Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council
  • Brentwood Community Council
  • Neighborhood Council of Westchester/Playa
  • Pacific Palisades Community Council (modified version)
  • Palms Neighborhood Council
  • Venice Neighborhood Council
  • West LA-Sawtelle Neighborhood Council
  • Westwood Community Council
  • Westwood Neighborhood Council

Motion

Whereas the Los Angeles City Attorney; the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety; and the Los Angeles City Council continue to selectively enforce existing zoning ordinances to the detriment of our stakeholders quality of life including, but not limited to, short term rentals, illegal signs, illegal boarding houses and the like.

Therefore the member councils of WRAC demand the city comply with its own ordinances and laws and immediately enforce all applicable zoning and building codes unless duly amended.

Read more

City Authority Over Conditional Use Beverage (CUB) Permits for Alcohol

Formally adopted by WRAC in April 2016

Passed by

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

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.

Read more

Oppose AB 1373 Exempting 40 Square Blocks of DTLA From the CA Outdoor Advertising Act

Motion failed to be adopted by a majority of Councils before the February 2016 deadline

Passed by

  • Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council
  • Brentwood Community Council
  • Mar Vista Community Council
  • West LA-Sawtelle Neighborhood Council
  • Westside Neighborhood Council
  • Westwood Neighborhood Council

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.

Read more

Appeals Process for Building Permits

Motion failed to be adopted by a majority of Councils before the January 2016 deadline

Passed by

  • Mar Vista Community Council
  • Palms Neighborhood Council
  • South Robertson Neighborhoods Council

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.

Read more

Revised City Sign Ordinance Motion

Motion failed to be adopted by a majority of Councils before the January 2016 deadline

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
  • Westside Neighborhood Council
  • Westwood Neighborhood Council

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.

Read more

Timely LADBS notification to all our NCs and CCs

Motion failed to be adopted by a majority of Councils before the January 2016 deadline

Passed by

  • Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council
  • Brentwood Community Council
  • South Robertson Neighborhoods Council
  • Westwood Neighborhood Council

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.

Read more

Neighborhood Council Monitoring of City Services

Motion failed to be adopted by a majority of Councils before the October 2015 deadline

Passed by

  • Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council
  • Pacific Palisades Community Council
  • South Robertson Neighborhoods Council
  • Venice Neighborhood Council

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.

Read more

Mobility Plan 2035 Statement of Overriding Considerations

Motion failed to be adopted by a majority of Councils before the September 2015 deadline

Passed by

  • West LA-Sawtelle Neighborhood Council
  • Westside Neighborhood Council
  • Westwood Neighborhood Council

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.

Read more

1 12 13 14 15 16
Go to Top