Motions

WRAC LUPC MOTION OPPOSING SB 50

No passage deadline has been set

Passed by

  • Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council
  • Brentwood Community Council
  • Neighborhood Council of Westchester/Playa
  • Pacific Palisades Community Council
  • West LA-Sawtelle Neighborhood Council

Motion

WRAC LUPC SPONSORED MOTION OPPOSING SB 50 [WIENER]

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.

Read more

Support CF 20-1174 (Unfinished Development/Enforcement)

No passage deadline has been set

Not yet passed by a member Council

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.

Read more

Support CF 20-1175 (Vacant Structures/ACE Citations)

No passage deadline has been set

Not yet passed by a member Council

Motion

Refers to City Council file 20-1175

Motion to support CF 20-1175. Whereas the city of Los Angeles has Notices to Abate Vacant Structures that are not being adhered to, therefore, the City Attorney, with the assistance of the Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) shall begin issuing ACE citations for violations of LAMC 91.8904 that notifies property owners and financial institutions that carry a mortgage on the property via written correspondence, that they could be subject to fines, criminal prosecution and recovery of city abatement costs through a lien on the property.

Read more

1 15 16 17
Go to Top